Lephys

The "long" hair that's only a foot long always bugs me, from a "I want to customize my character" standpoint. BUT, I get that hair past that inherently creates all kinds of clipping problems that must be solved. So... *shrug*. All things considered, I don't mind. But, in a game like Fallout: NV, for example... it ends up being that all the options are so similar, everyone kinda looks "the same." You never really have drastically different head silhouettes, etc. Hair's one of the few things you can actually go pretty wild with in that regard, because it's hard to allow a ton of facial/head variance without things looking reallllllly wonky.

Maybe there is... but they're SO sneaky that even Obsidian doesn't know they're there. O_O

^ Exactly. It's not that it can't be done. It's just that, most people don't quite understand the whole process involved with making these backgrounds. It's not even just the "we decided to make a 3D scene, then bake it into an isometric-perspective 2D background image," because PoE uses all that 3D information to produce dynamic lighting and such on the 2D image. Now, if all the game demands is a 2D image of any kind, then I guess technically we could doodle in Microsoft Paint and mod "stick-person" cliffs and terrain images into the game. Just exaggerating to make the point. Someone could obviously bake or hand-draw, even, some spiffy terrain, probably, and have it look pretty nice. The point being, however, that without doing it as extensively as Obsidian did it, you won't get all the environmental effects that you will with the unmodded game environments. So, I suppose we could just make pretty 2D images for backgrounds, and mod them in. It just might look a bit wonky compared to the original environments.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that one simply must assume either that the class will go completely unimproved between the last beta build (what... almost a month ago, now?) and release (and simply never even bother to check that class when the game releases), OR that the class will definitely be perfect (and plan to definitely play THAT class without even checking out any others or forming any contingencies). There's a third option, called "take 10 seconds to see if the class is actually better, lest you avoid it for no reason at all." But, maybe that's just crazy talk... *shrug*

PoE 2's actually secretly complete, isn't it... and if you manage to naturally attain the above achievement, PoE2 abruptly unlocks in your Steam account and begins downloading. I'm on to you! o_O

Well, that's kind of the thing. Sure, there are plenty of people in existence that enjoy playing dating sims and the like. There's nothing wrong with that. But, there's only so much focus you can put on specifically a single relationship before it becomes more important than the rest of the game. On any of them. If the game focused way too much on my being able to just take a party companion to the taverns in our free time, and throw darts and drink all the time, and try to be each-other's wingmen, I would say "Umm... isn't there a big, impending narrative going on here? This doesn't feel right." It doesn't have much to do with the type of relationship that's going on. It's just more that... that doesn't feel like it fits with a game who's design is like that. So, romance is just another type of relationship, and I feel it should be treated as any other relationship should. It's not even a separate relationship, as you can be someone's friend, and venture into romantic territory with that person. There's overlap. Stuff that constitutes strictly "romance" is really not that much, quantity-wise. A relationship that's pure romance is essentially just a quick fling. But, as with anything else in a cRPG, the significance of these feelings and emotions between characters lies in how it motivates their actions/decisions/behavior/character development, and how the narrative is affected. In terms of design, it should be approached just like "what happens if you have really high Lore? How does that affect this situation, or this other one? Or really high Resolve?". Or, "What happens if you make a decision to handle this situation in a way that is very meaningful to THIS companion, as opposed to doing it your own way and upsetting them?". That kind of thing. The whole purpose of choices in an cRPG is to effect significant outcomes. To produce a world and narrative with dynamic, instead of a linear "just play through this big obstacle course from start to finish." So, while I get that people all like a lot of different things, I think when it comes to game design, what would simply be nice can't rule over the cohesion of the design. I mean, look at how many threads we've had on simulated systems. "There should be durability!". I, for one, LOVE stuff like that. But, I have to recognize when and where it's actually supportive of a game's design, and when it isn't. Or the resulting game is just going to be some weird, hodge-podge of things that were neat in isolation, but don't necessarily go together. If you like oil, and you like water, that doesn't mean oil-and-water is a good mixture, unfortunately. So, yeah, when it comes to romance in games specifically like PoE, I think it can be very valuable, but not as a purely "this is just to appease people who like romantic stuff" way. I'm a person who enjoys romance, but I don't enjoy it just for its own sake. So, there's go to be a focused, processed goal for it. And, in that regard, I think it needs to be approached much like all the other choice-presenting player-character options in the game. Then, of course, it also has a place in "side content"; actually goings on that can be affected, etc., between NPCs and the like. Maybe one path of choices has you find out some information about the Big Bad Guy's beloved that actually lets you get through to him in a different way and affect some choices he makes. Maybe you make him question some things. Or, maybe it doesn't go that high, but I don't think he should be immune, either. But, there's plenty of room for that kind of relationship -- past, present, or in-the-works -- to support the narrative weavings of many an NPC throughout the game, even if it's not YOU taking part in that relationsip.

Bear in mind... advice such as this may not hold true for the final game. I would say that if you're playing the current beta build, definitely don't go with class X for reason Y. But, avoiding a class at the game's release wouldn't be very prudent, since the class could very well be "fixed" at that point in time.

That's very true. I didn't think of that. I was only thinking of the graphical impact directly on the game. Good point, ^_^

I think you mean mine-ions. 6_u

You're welcome to make a new thread entitled "Are there or are there not romances in these classic RPGs: (list)", if you'd like. Or maybe a "Can romance go unreciprocated?" thread. It doesn't cost anything.

I enjoyed DA:I's crafting system, compared to none at all. But, yeah, assuming a game already has a crafting system in it's available-gear-library, it could've been WAY better done. Recipes were haphazardly placed. Some stuff wasn't even "better," really. You'd have one hilt with a Utility slot, so you can slap 6 metal in it and get 6 Strength or something. Then, you'd have another hilt that was all Defense slots, so all anything can give you is one of like 3 elemental defenses, and the highest you can get until you spend another 15 hours in the game to find some higher tier materials is like 5%. Or, better yet, the all-Offense-slot equipment components, which allow you to get like "+2% chance to bleed on hit," or "+3% attack." YEAH! *shrug*. It seems like they came up with the system, then just ran out of time and kind of threw stuff all over the place. And yeah, the loot you find is almost always either: A) WAY worse than anything you can craft, ever. B) Far better than anything you can craft until you find some way better recipe hours on down the road. That, and you kept finding loot items that WOULD be really good, but they possess ZERO upgrade slots. THAT, and you'd find a recipe for this spiffy axe you like a lot, but for some reason, it only has a 78 DPS rating with Iron, but this other axe that you don't like has a 112 DPS rating. And you don't even find those in that order, necessarily. It's really weird. I don't know who was in charge of the overall logistics of that system.

We can just pretend it was a typo, and you meant "Twomorrow." 6_u

'Cause it's still that versus whatever you could get from two weapons, a weapon-and-shield, OR a two-hander. 8P

Hahaha. All we have is a rough draft right now. They're going to pull an all-nighter and write their whole paper the night before it's due.

Even then, it begs the question "Why is THAT one spell on cooldown, but you can cast other spells?". I mean, it makes sense for some spells/abilities, like... teleport or something. "I can only bend space so often" or something. But, if it covered all abilities in lieu of the per-rest/per-encounter system, then why can you not cast another Fireball, but you can cast 5 other spells? I think in that regard, some form of mana/stamina system is even better than a cooldown system. But, I'd say one that doesn't just function off of static per-second regen rates and the like would be ideal. It's kind of like cooldowns, because it represents a time-based limitation; if you're out of mana (simple example), you can't cast again until your mana has regenerated enough, depending on the cost of your ability. However, that shouldn't really regenerate ALWAYS at the same rate, like I said, and there should be a lot more contextual factors at play. Perhaps, for example, the more "tired" you are, the more taxing a spell casting is. I mean, this makes sense for Stamina and physical abilities, because the more fatigued you are, the harder it is to perform a given action. But, it could be applied to magic, in a sort of mental/magical stamina sense. Thus, do you wait 'til your mana recharges a bit, or do you keep casting rapid-fire at the cost of more and more mana (relative to whatever spell you're casting -- a 5-mana spell would then cost 6, then 7, then 8, for example, and a 20-mana spell would cost 22, 24, 26, etc.). OR, along those same lines (the effects of time on "fatigue"), you could simply have a penalty for how quickly you cast a spell after a previous spell. So, you cast a spell, and some bar comes up. It starts at full, and over the course of 5 seconds, it depletes to empty. Maybe it has 5 segments, one for each second. So, however many segments are left in that bar when you cast another spell, a mana penalty is applied that's equal to (Segments * 5%) or something. So, worst-case scenario, if you rapid-fire your spells, they cost 25% more mana (after the first one). Stuff like that. It works like cooldowns, but it's not quite so rigid "You cast this spell, so you cannot cast THIS spell again until X time." OR you could even just apply that to cooldowns. Maybe your spell starts at a 1-second cooldown, but you've got that same 5-segment bar, and for every segment on the bar when you cast THAT spell again, your cooldown increases by 1 second. So, if you cast that 1-second spell immediately when you were able to again, you wouldn't be able to cast it for 6 seconds the next time. *shrug*. There's a lot of interesting stuff that can be done with ability limiting.

Ohhhhhh. By Zeus, I think you're right. The dingy light just kinda makes it look like rubble, 8P

I'm kind of okay with the strictly-crit-path playthrough being slightly "underfunded." What I mean is, you've got to make your money count at that point, and not just freely buy all the convenient stuff. After all, if you'd rather drive straight home, instead of going out of your way to stop by the grocery store on the way home, then you're going to do without groceries. But, if you go explore some secret ruins, and find The Super Spiffy Plate Armor of Splenjesty, but you, for whatever reason, decide to sell that to the highest bidder and hoard that money, I'm no longer concerned with that money. What are you going to do with that money versus what that Plate Armor would've provided you? And could you have ever amassed enough money to somehow produce that armor, other than buy tackling whatever ruins it rested within? There's only so easy the crit path can become. If the game's designed such that being LvL 12 instead of 8 makes the crit path a huge deal easier, for example, then even without gold, there's a problem. There's obviously a point at which you've made the game too easy just with what gold allows you to acquire, but, at the same time, merely being able to have lots of gold shouldn't really be an issue. I mean, why was all that stuff put into the game if acquiring it makes the game too easy? Seems like more of a design flaw of the stuff you get with the gold, than of the availability of the gold itself.

Unfortunately, it'll probably be mostly "never heard of this game before?! It's got classes, and clicking, and it's isometric! etc.!" info. I get why that is, though, as this kind of game is basically only followed heavily by "niche" gaming news, early on. So, even now, this close to release, there are crowds of people who don't really know much about it. It's just disappointing, sort of, 'cause, as one who follows it this whole time, you kinda wish for the information released to get more and more specific. Or, you know, at least not quite so redundant to you. I will say that this is probably the most knowledgeable I've ever been about a game before its release. Especially as early as I knew stuff. 8P. So, there's that cool bit about Kickstarter. I mean, we know about designs the game mechanics had in a working build that don't even exist in any form in the final build, . It's kinda neat.

Hmmm... I didn't actually check when I read that. Just assumed there was a pile of gold in that picture. Now that I actually look at it, I don't see one. BUT, that sort of mound of rocks and rockish debris in the southern portion of the... cul-de-sac? Kinda looks like gold in dingy light. The smallish rock debris sort of looks like little coins spilling down a mound. *shrug*. Maybe that's what he saw?

But then, what do you do once you've defeated your enemies? Loot their corpses. In this case, a bit more literally. "Make sure you check between the ribs, lads! The gold likes to get stuck there a lot!"

I get what you're saying, but it's not really an outright better limitation, because you can just stand around for 30 minutes and be able to cast a spell again. Whereas, while a per-encounter limit isn't perfect, it makes sure that, relative to how often you'll need to use Spell X, the spell will be sufficiently limited. Now, if we ever got a game in which, just like a DM, you had some consequences for standing around for 30 minutes, etc., then that time-limit would work beautifully. Until then, it's pros and cons on both methods. I guess what I'm saying, though, is that the actual ticking-time-limit cooldown doesn't work as well as it's intended to, because the time you spend issuing commands to your characters, and looking at your inventory, etc., doesn't really translate well into game world time elapsed. Imagine you wrote a story about your party's exploits. If you HAD to make your way through a forest quickly, or something unfortunate would occur, then you'd ideally have "They were beset by some foes. An ambush! Unfortunately, Philip the Mage was too magically fatigued to produce another fireball this soon after that last battle." That outcome is the whole purpose of the limitaton. "Oh, you used Fireball? Well, now suffer significant consequences for not saving it for later, etc." Or, to put it another way, the only significance that cooldown has is that you cannot use the spell whenever you wish. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose. But, in a typical cRPG, you get the story: "Luckily, the group had jogged around in the areas they'd already cleared of enemies for a while, so Philip the Mage was perfectly ready to cast another Fireball come the next ambush." Which isn't really very exciting. 8P

Hairy Adventurer: ":Luckily, I've got this infinite stache!" 6_u

I dunno. Why does a guy firing off shots in Disneyland get all the attention from security? I guess with you calling everyone out on everything, I should randomly start questioning Bruce about the stuff you're saying. *shrug* Also... you continuously group all "promancers" into one collective hivemind with the exact same thoughts and ideas on things, yet I'm the person taking "potshots" at "the anti-mancers"? Name one time I've said anything against "the anti-mancers." Do you represent all people who don't advocate romance? Or do you just represent yourself? You can call out people left and right, to the point of no longer even caring what it is we're discussing, as long as someone "isn't doing it right," but heaven forbid anyone "grill" you with questions? My goodness, sweet child...

I get the sentiment. I mean, look at it this way: If 80 bajillion people buy half-price games on Black Friday, imagine how many people would buy ALL games if they were simply 30$ instead of 60. Look at Subway. They were in trouble, then they came up with the never-before-thought-of-idea (sarcasm) of lowering their prices. Thus, the $5 Footlong was born. Suddenly, everyone's like "Man... a nice, round $5 price for a footlong sandwich?! I'M IN!", and they sell like hotcakes. And with video games, they don't even have the material costs of each individual copy, like they do with sandwiches (sure, there's the cost of discs and packaging, or with digital distribution, there's the general cost of being able to distribute, divided by however many copies you happen to sell, etc.). But, anywho, I don't really understand how the industry, in general, comes up with "this is the best price." *shrug*. Same thing with like... movie theater food. If a drink and a popcorn were $2, I'd get one every single time I go to the movie theater. Instead, it's like $10, so I pretty much never get anything. Sure, they're making $10, and an ambiguous "lot" of people are just hungry and/or thirsty and don't care how much it costs, really, 'cause they just want some food and drink while they're there. But, I just can't imagine what kind of statistics they have that guarantee they're better off selling drinks and popcorn for $5 a piece instead of, say, $3 a piece. Did they ever TRY selling it for cheaper? Or did they just run "marketing simulations" and combine that with poll data, so that the 73 margins of error all overlap into oblivion, and you come up with some ultra-precise "conclusive" data? Seems silly to me.

Which side was that? Could you please point out the pot-shot? I merely described the purpose of the thread, as described by the author of the thread. Then, I made the simple observation that many posts throughout the thread, at various points, have slipped off the topic and onto tangential mini-battles. That has occurred, as it not? I didn't aim fault at anyone. I simply described the thread.