Lephys

What I mean is, in that regard, it's a paradox. "Don't worry, since the difficulty won't change, the difficulty will have changed!" I realize that you mean that since the game's coded difficulty setting will not adjust for you, the actually difficulty level of your playthrough is going to change. But, the wording makes it seem like the above line -- that, because the difficulty won't be different, the difficulty will be different.

Your write! Seriously, I didn't think about those.

^ False attack animations are definitely not the way to go. Honestly, off the top of my head, I would just make standard attacks happen more frequently, and tweak the numbers to whatever general DPS I had intended. What I mean is, if I wanted daggers to be able to dish out roughly 100 damage in 10 seconds, and they currently attack every 3 seconds, then I'd just make them attack every 1 second and deal 10 damage, instead of dealing 33 damage every 3 seconds. Also, I would make the recovery time different for standard attacks than for spells/abilities. So, maybe standard attack recovery time is 2 seconds (for example... maybe that's too slow, *shrug*), and that gets modified by your weapon (Daggers would reduce it, a greatsword would increase it). Then, anything that affected your recovery time (like armor, etc.) would still work exactly the same. If it increased recovery time by 50%, then your daggers would be up to 1.5 seconds between attacks, and your 4-second spell would be up to 6 seconds of recovery time. Etc. I'm pretty sure PoE already has different recovery times for short/med/long spells/abilities, so I don't know why there's this strange "attacks have to be really slow and ULTRA meaningful on every single attack" stigma around for RPGs, still. Especially in a game with misses AND grazes. Someone with two daggers should be constantly attempting to tear you up, and each individual attack shouldn't be that threatening, really. But, more the ongoing assault should be what you're worried about. How long you're allowing them to attack you, and how many times you risk getting hit or critted, as opposed to grazed or missed, etc. And that doesn't mean individual hits don't matter. It just means that, you're not waiting for one potentially huge/dire hit every time someone simply swings a weapon at you. TL;DR version -- just because spells and abilities are slower/less frequent doesn't mean that someone trying to cut you with a knife should be slowed down to match it.

I bet "rouge" is the most-typo'd word on these forums.

Just remember that it's not specific to casting. It's your Recovery Time between actions. So, even your Warrior with heavy armor will attack/act less frequently. I think as of the current beta build, most people agree that it's not really worth it to have many people at all in heavier armor. But, hopefully some numbers will be tweaked before release so that it's actually a choice worth considering.

When Fallout: NV released, it was all based around midnight, Pacific Time. I went to Gamestop, picked up my physical copy, and still couldn't play it until 2AM. Even though console peeps went home and played it immediately, heh. Annnywho... That was some time ago, but, I think everything else they do (sales refreshes, etc.) is based around Pacific Time. Maybe they do it differently for game releases? *Shrug*

Overwhelmingly positively? Oh, is that why all RPG creators copy them and include the same kinds of romantic content in their games? Oh, wait... they don't. I forgot. Methinks you missed my whole point in my last post. If you give kids candy, the response is going to be overwhelmingly positive. Doesn't mean the kids should decide everything. Especially when you're planning a banquet for not-just-kids, but you decide to sprinkle candy throughout all the dishes, because "a bunch of people" see that as "overwhelmingly positive." I'm rather enjoying DA:I right now, but I reallllly don't like the romance in it. And I'm not even against romance. I'm all for it. So, where is this "overwhelmingly positive" response to their romantic components? Is it from all the people who already like romance, simply because romance? Yeah, that's a splendidly useful response, isn't it. Let's make all our future development decisions based on that, why don't we... That, and the goal of playing the game isn't to achieve the death of the bad guy. A Mario game, maybe. You play through levels until you win. The goal of an RPG? It's to play the game. Sure, there's an element of winning involved, but, it's more about the journey than the destination, to put it simply. Or rather, the destination is pretty much just a part of the journey. If you could simply stock up on healing potions and scrolls of invulnerability, then storm the bad guy's castle 3 minutes into the game and kill him in his sleep, then have your whole party victory-fist into the air and freeze frame as credits roll, it wouldn't be much of an RPG. So, I dare say the same about any romantic element in an RPG. As has been pointed out, among the many, many flaws in "typical" romances we see in these games is that the goal is to romance the character. When they have been fully romanced, you win. There's like, a measurably romantification. You start at 0, and go to 100. That's dumb. Really, really dumb. Don't get me wrong. If you like that kind of gameplay/goal, then there's nothing objectively wrong with that. But, it doesn't in any way go with a game like this. There are games for that. There's fanfiction for that. There are movies and books for that, etc. If you think there aren't enough games for that, then petition someone to make more games with that as a central design goal from the get-go. Basically, the only type of romance that has any place in these RPGs is the kind that would not appease the "romance fanatics." I don't think any "fanatics" should be appeased by a game that wasn't targeted to a fanatic demographic in the first place.

Yes, in the same way that an elementary school teacher who hands out free Snickers bars every day becomes the "industry standard" in elementary teachers. A giant, biased group of people liking them the most doesn't really designate an industry standard. Especially considering how the rest of the actual industry looks upon their work, specifically with romances.

I never did play Dragon's Dogma. Heard from a friend that it's pretty ultra fun, though. And I agree that the difference between death and incapacitation is a pretty important one. Depending on the game, it could be that you don't need an incapacitation, but it's not exactly uber-simulation to merely represent at state of "you just took another arrow to the shoulder and you've collapsed, but you're not actually dead yet." That's actually one of my biggest pet peeves in realistic TV shows. Usually cop dramas. They come upon a scene where someone's been shot or something (or, even worse, choked or drowned -- something that doesn't lave a gaping hole in your circulatory system), and they just go all "OH NOEZ!", check their pulse, then sighingly say "welp... they're dead" while holstering their weapons. Croikey. OR, when they start doing CPR 'cause someone stopped breathing, and they do it for like 30 seconds, then go "Just let him go! He's dead!". No, you do CPR until the ambulance gets there, or until you can no longer perform CPR. The purpose of CPR isn't to resuscitate anyone. It's to keep their blood oxygenated and flowing throughout their body while their heart and lungs are on break. Annnnnnywho. In an RPG like this, you can stray pretty far from perfect simulation without eliminating the "you're down but not out" state. But, I feel like, in some ways, just having depleting Health and depleting Endurance is a little too simplistic. I think that's most people's problem with it is that running out of Endurance while still having a large bit of Health left seems like you've been "knocked out," which seems strange given that you're being hit by axes, arrows, and firebolts. Ideally, it's best, I think, to separate lethal and non-lethal damage in some form. The best way to do that? Well, that's a whole 'nother brainstorm I suppose, But, I get their limitations, and why it isn't 100% perfectly ideal in PoE, and it gets the job done, so... *shrug*.

Agreed. That's actually why I distinctly favor "romance," and not "romances." Romance"s" are their own thing. It's like the difference between having crafting, and "professions." Professions are entire volitions dedicated to crafting. Whereas, if a game has "crafting," it could be that you can craft 10 things in it, here and there. Or maybe some guy at your stronghold crafts all your stuff, etc. Anywho. The words aren't really that restrictive, it's just that, statistically, everyone always refers to the awful "time out, let's try to build a relationship as separate from this whole actual plot! 8D!" intances as "romances." Then, there's the recurring argument "such-and-such doesn't have 'romances'", simply because they feel (and usually rightly so) that the content in a game doesn't constitute "a romance." The way I look at it, you get to take different members of your band of potential party members out traveling with you throughout the game's plot, and for different reasons. Maybe you just like their combat effectiveness. Maybe you really like their ideals and want to explore what they're all about, etc. Either way, you're still just playing through the game. You can give a crap about how your character is interacting with them all the while. Romance is just another subset of relationship types. It's just another connection two people can have towards each other. It doesn't take over and supercede all the others. You can hate what someone is doing, and refuse to travel with them (in the sense of an RPG), and even actively counteract their current plans or cause, all the while still caring very much about them, romantically. In fact, when it comes to inter-character interactions, one can find out that your motives for choosing option A instead of option B in some situation were "because I sappily love you, and just chose to do what I thought you wanted," and think you are a fool. "What the hell kind of decision-making process is that?!" I'd actually love to see that in an RPG. Sure, you can treat it like a dating sim, and it (the game) will respond accordingly,

Your specific capitalization of the letter "n" has sparked a pun. Congratulations! It's pouring rain, and your party stops at a middle-of-nowhere little establishment with firelight flickering in its windows. As you approach the door, you look upon a plaque you've noticed just above it. It reads: "The Recognitio Inn." As you enter, shaking the torrents of water from your cloak and boots, the owner greets you with a smile. "Hi! I'm Sensuki!". He then resumes what appear to be experiments regarding the best number of glasses to stack behind the bar, the best location for each bottle of liquor, the best "patrol routes" for his barmaids to most efficiently keep flagons filled, etc.

See, I'm a "promancer," and I didn't even think that was something that was in question. I mean, heck, you don't even need combat to make a great RPG. Why would romance be crucial? I'm honestly mind-boggled by the people who can't figure out if they want to buy the game or not, purely because of the absence of romance. That would be like ambivalence about the game because Ranger Pets aren't enough like Pokemon. "Well, I really just want another Pokemon game, but, I REALLY really want this game that's hardly anything like Pokemon to be a lot more like Pokemon." Why would you order a buffet just for chicken strips? You could just go to a store that sells only (or mainly) chicken strips. Such a convoluted route to your goal...

Not that I'm not on board with you regarding the combat-only sentiments (that's just FAR less than ideal, and really should've been less of a rigid divide in the game's design), but... the whole per-rest abilities are somewhat useless because they CAN be wasted? That's not too big of a deal. I mean, if 90% of per-rest abilities had durations of 3 hours, then sure. That would be silly. But, I think pretty much everything has a pretty short duration. And, what about potions? Potions don't replenish even when you rest, yet you you COULD use them when you thought you needed to, only to win combat 10 seconds later. Then, that potion's effect is wasted (if it's an effect with a duration). Doesn't mean the whole design of potions is wrong. Again, ideally, things wouldn't magically be restricted by some ambiguous "combat state." "Has the enemy already gotten an advantage on you? Then now you can fire up those useful effects! 8D!". It's silly, sure. But, There's still plenty of room for per-rest abilities to be useful. Even duration-based ones. If you can't ever figure out when to not use a 60-second protection ability, only to have combat end within 10 seconds, then there's a lot more wrong with the game than "Oh no, per-rest abilities are obsolete."

^ Yes. The beta is basically a completely separate product from the final version of the game. Even people with fully-up-to-date beta versions, when the game releases, will have to freshly install the actual game. The beta build won't just be patched up to the final version or anything.

Sure it can. If two points can be undefined/infinite (the two "ends" of a line), then so can 3. It's not like math says "Oh, now wait a minute! There's more than 2 of you? Well, then you're finite. Sorry, u_u..." Silly person, you. Hahaha. Man I love you, Stun. You're right. There are two types of people, in a way. Narrow-minded people, and broadminded people. Your "only two sides" is only true within the narrow-minded people, because they can only see something as, overall, positive or negative. The broad-minded people look at its parts and evaluate it, and realize that, sometimes, there's only so much of the "truth" of the matter we can deduce, and the rest is just fun "compare and contrast perspectives and preferences." Besides... according to you, the fence stretches a lot farther than the single point on either side of it.

It's not very important in SOME games. Depending on the game's design, it can be unimportant. Like... Evolve. There's kind of a "story," but it's mainly just there to support the gameplay setup. Even though it doesn't make chronological sense that the same teams of the same characters will somehow keep trying to defend the same colony while it evacuates its people, it's just sort of one of those dynamic time-segment loops for the sake of gameplay. If there was absolutely no story, the game would still be fun in its "matches." But, what story IS there does, I think, add a bit of something to the ambiance of the matches. But the story definitely matters in a lot of games. It would be silly to act as though the only video games we should have are ones like Evolve or Diablo, in which "Meh, there's kind of a story riding in the backseat, but it's really just all about playing them."

I know what you meant -- that the game won't adjust to you, so you'll have to adjust to the game with your 3-4 people -- but it's just funny how that happened to be worded, It can be taken as "your party size won't affect the difficulty, so the game will become more difficult because of your party size." Heh. Gotta love English.

Oh dear... I'm currently bouncing around between Fallout: NV (PC; played about 60 hours a while back when it released, then just stopped playing it one day, because of too many other games I picked up), DA:I (PS4), Evolve (PS4), Mercenary Kings (PS4; It was on sale for 6 bucks during Valentine's weekend!), XCOM:EU (PC), Endless Dungeon (PC), and Pixel Heroes: Byte & Magic (PC). I really need to fire up Wasteland 2, but it's still on the shelf because I got it so late (physical copy). I need to play fewer games at one time, 8P... I'm also trying to get back into drawing, though, so... -____-. So many things competing for my free time!

^ Oh, definitely. I was just thinking of other ways of going about it that I hadn't really thought about before. Now I'm just trying to think if there's a better way than "you can only take so much damage, total, between rests" to handle what is currently Health. Especially in conjunction with the camping supply system. Sure, Health limits your ability to just keep taking little bits of damage for 7 years straight and being fine, but, all it really does is prompt you to rest. That's the main reason some are so puzzled by its existence, I think, is that the main focus is typically on "how much damage can I take in combat, before I'm out of combat?". I mean, that's the only health representation we typically see in these games. Purely because what's actually going to lead to your death and what isn't is pretty exciting. Granted, If you get down to 80 Health, then even if you have 100 Endurance (max), you're going to die in 80 more damage. So, it kinda of does that, but not until you've accumulated a lot of damage since your last rest. I was just thinking, a system that focuses on the augmentation of your single, maximum health pool (aka your health in a system that only has "health" and that's it) could lead to some rather interesting health dynamics. There are so many factors to play with, there. Some things could increase your maximum health, while others (like wounds I described) would decrease it. Some effects could cause your maximum health to decrease each time you're hit (so that, even if you're hit for 50 dmg instead of, say, 10 damage, your max health drops by 5, for example). Something like that, as it alters each subsequent battle, could be pretty interesting. There could still be some "go back to town and heal up" option, but it might be nice to have simply negative and positive consequences for your health, as it pertains to the here-and-now of the current and next combat encounters. The topic just sparked a brainstorm. Sorry. 8P

. I appreciate the humor. But, really, I'm just against limiting the sides to 2. A 2-sided shape is just a line. Toss in a 3rd shape, and you have a triangle. That covers a LOT more area than a line does. Annnd that's kind of how restricting everything to pro/anti works. It's just silly. I'm a "promancer," but I'd agree with plenty of "antimancers" who pointed out plenty of bad romances that other "promancers" would adore, purely BECAUSE ROMANCE! Nonsense... if I was Russian, wouldn't I have finished my mission by now? 6_u

Maybe 1H style should get more bonuses (quantity-wise), but not necessarily higher bonuses than everything else? Since it would kind of be the most versatile style, in a way? You can dedicate all the movement of both your arms/hands to the usage of that one weapon. Or, what if you gained a "counter"-type bonus? Convert some percentage of incoming Hits to Grazes, and every time the enemy Grazes or Misses, your Recovery time is reduced? I dunno... those don't seem quite right, but I'm trying to feel for something a little unique.

Well, I didn't think about it before, but, unless you ONLY lost HP-max when you were downed (or, at the very least, never had a direct relationship between your HP-max loss and your damage taken), it would simply be a far more convoluted form of Health+Endurance. As it is now, Health is just a numerical, "total" representation of "max-HP." In other words... if a character in PoE has 100 Endurance and 400 Health, that's pretty much the same as having the system you described, and having 25% of your damage taken lower your max HP. There's a slight difference, of course, because your 100 Endurance doesn't actually get lowered until you've taken more than 300 damage. But, the relationship is basically the same. So, it's not that it wouldn't be different, but, I guess it wouldn't be significantly different. That being said, I don't know if "only losing max-HP when you're downed" is a good plan. But, it's the only thing that would be significantly different. It's an incentive not to let people "die" in combat, even if they get back up and are "healed" (regenerate Endurance) after combat ends, so long as you're victorious. But, at the same time, as long as no one's ever downed, nothing ever changes. *shrug* Just seems like significant wounds as strikes against your max-HP might be an interesting system to play with, design-wise. Especially since HP is basically a numerical representation of how well you're doing. Most wound systems end up being really annoying because they're heavy-handed. "Ohhh, you can't heal this at all unless you jog back to a healer in town or something," etc. But, if they were just a part of the health system, and the flow of combat throughout an area/over a period of time, I think they could be interesting. Some could even make you slower (attack frequency OR move speed, I guess, but you'd have to be careful with move-speed slowing, especially outside of combat), while some could make you weaker (base damage penalty). Some, less-accurate. Then, they'd all detriment your max HP, but most by just a little, and some others by a lot. Or, some could just affect your healing. Maybe poison? Instead of "Oh no, it's going to kill you!" it'd be long-term poison, so it just does 1 dmg to you every 5-10 seconds (even outside of combat), but detriments all your incoming heals to 20% potency, and/or converts direct/instant heals to heal-over-time. You would've just been healed for 50 HP? Now you're healed for 5 HP a second for 10 seconds. Or some combination of the two.

A railing would probably be nice there.

@barakav, The ME writers may very well have intentionally copied start control. But, at the same time, when it comes to space, a lot of threats just seem petty, shy of some nigh-unstoppable force. And a nigh-unstoppable force that's always around isn't as interesting as one that mysteriously shows up every so often. And a precursor race is very, very common in space-themed stories. So, I mean... even if they had played Star Control before, and knew how similar their stories were, it wouldn't necessarily mean they just couldn't think up a story until they heard Star Control's story. BUT, they could've. Who knows. They could've known from the get-go, and just said "Hey, let's borrow that." And yes, some people are, indeed, exaggerating your stance on the matter. I don't think that's reasonable of them to do. And I'm not trying to be antagonistic (I realize the tone pure text can take on). But, it does sort of encourage one to believe your point goes beyond what it actually is when you sort of (maybe unintentionally) keep emphasizing something as a possibility that someone else did not deny. Or, basically, you started out saying "You think maybe these newer games were inspired by these older games (example list here)?", and several of us pointed out "Could be, but keep in mind that coincidences do exist, and it's not that crazy for them to be coincidence (some examples and references)." To which you went a little "Yeah, but specifically a female character, who lost her husband? I mean that really makes it seem a lot less likely, 'cause it's so specific." Which got a little confusing, because some of those examples you emphasized aren't really that specific, all things considered. Basically, the initial counter-point was just "that's not as much evidence toward probable inspiration as you think it is." So to sort of butt heads with that point -- that we would still pretty much be assuming one way or the other -- doesn't exactly tell people "I'm totally not saying that these things must be ripoffs," even if it doesn't tell people that you definitely are trying to suggest that emphatically (which is why people don't need to assume that of you, in the exact same way we don't need to assume the mere existence of these similarities in a lot of game stories are intentional OR coincidence).

Maybe asymmetry is really big in Eora, u_u...