Lephys

Not fixed, still happens for me. That sounds really, really painful. 8P

As long as you have an awful lot of control over when and where friendly-fire effects are going off, it's fine. In DA:I, I had to toggle friendly-fire off after about 30 hours, simply because the majority of the difficulty was becoming "How do I simultaneously use effective abilities against the enemy AND not-kill all my own people?" I mean, Iron Bull would use his Charge, and it would like 2-hit kill 2 of my allies. So I had to "turn it off" in his AI tactics, then try to fire it off manually. But, something like that's really awkward to try to fire-off manually. *shrug*. It's just kind of a chore in that game to play it the tactically-choose-every-single-thing-everyone-does way. And there are too many abilities that hurt your friends. REALLY badly. I swear Chain Lightning in that game has some kind of coded preference to seek allies. I was casting it on groups of like 3 enemies, 30 feet away from me (all within about 10 feet of one another), and 99% of the time, after the first hit/strike, it would jump straight to me, then bounce throughout my party. Weird... Anywho, I haven't had that problem thus far in PoE, but I've mainly focused on the cone/linear wizard spells.

You know what would be awesome? I'd totally do this if I was a game development studio, ... To pick little things like this (low-INT dialogue), and animated grass/trees, etc. (the things we're kinda like "Aww, man... oh well, the game will still be awesome" about), and periodically tell everyone "Oh, sorry, we've gotta abandon that, -_____-". Then, when the game comes out, just go all "SURPRISE! JUST KIDDING! ALL THAT STUFF'S IN! HAH!" Talk about an expectation grenade. 8P

I mean, I obviously can't guarantee anything, but that seems like it should at least be able to handle the game on lower settings. Just make sure all your drivers are up-to-date when the game comes out, 8P

^ Yeah, you could also run an error-checking scan on your hard drive/OS partition. It's not likely that that's the issue, but... you never know. It's good to run on every so often, anyway (like maybe annually). Go into "Computer" (For Win 7... In XP, it'll be "My Computer"), where it shows all your drives (hard disk and CD/DVD, etc.), and right-click on "C:" (it's usually C:, unless you specified otherwise when Windows was installed), and choose Properties. Click on the "Tools" tab, and you should see Error-Checking there at the top. Choose "Check Now," and you'll be prompted with two options. You can pretty much just check both of them, if you haven't run one of those scans in a while (or ever), then start the scan. Only, it's going to say something along the lines of "Windows can't star the scan right now 'cause Windows is running. Do you wish to schedule the scan at the next reboot?". Choose yes, then restart at your leisure. The scan typically takes about 2-3 hours, but it depends on how much stuff you've got on your hard drive.

It wasn't sarcasm (it was simply an example of a mindset I'd argue no reasonable person has), for the record. And I realize that you're talking about things that were one-time exclusives, or whatever phrase you'd like to use to describe things that could've been gotten but no longer can (or... no longer "may," I guess, so we cut out any technicalities). The reason I referenced $2 add-ons is... they're typically not an entirely different game. It's some small component that's a fraction of what constitutes an entire game package. Therefore, the thought process "Since if I bought the game, I wouldn't get that small, extra thing, I'm going to steal the game" is like saying "Well, since they don't sell that car with that color paint anymore, I'm going to steal someone's car." Not being able to get that one (or handful of) tiny extras in no way justifies the stealing of the entire product. Now, if you somehow figure out a way to hack/mod in those extras, then more power to you, I say. But how does that make it in any way reasonable to not-buy the game that you were going to buy anyway? Even if you got the version with the extras you wanted, you weren't going to get the game for free, and just pay for the extras. Methinks you missed the part, in what you highlighted in red, where I said they aren't all about integrity AND make that decision. Someone who decides something like that doesn't have any integrity. And I don't doubt that's how some people are (wanting to pirate with the excuse that they can't get some extras for purchase anymore), but you're attributing that directly to the availability of some extras. That's like saying "If you jewelers wouldn't make valuables, you wouldn't be promoting thievery." Like people were just fine with not-stealing, until you went and nudged them toward stealing.

THAT'S what's wrong with me, . I was designed and built by flawed constructs, designed to build other constructs. u_u *spark spark... twitch*

Heh, well, I'm not really trying to be humorous with it. What I mean is, there are things we'd probably all agree are blatantly ridiculous, but someone might like them. What makes them "legitimately" ridiculous, as opposed to merely an oppressed play style? I'm not trying to say that what Giftd1 has proposed is equally as ridiculous as anything else I've listed. I'm just wondering... what underlying factor determines that? Based on what do we draw the line? 'Cause, just on this forum alone (and all over the internet), you see "why shouldn't that play style be supported?!" getting thrown around like crazy. If anything anyone would like, purely because they would like it, is a valid play style, then how can we really say anything shouldn't be prevented/disallowed in a game's design?

Simply put, the reason you'd ever use it is: "Because you happen to be a different person who wishes to use it, and not yourself who doesn't." If you're not colorblind, there's no "reason" to use colorblind mode. Doesn't mean there's no reason for it to ever be used. Want to be able to distinguish selection circles and such from one another? Colorbind mode. Want a ridiculous challenge? Path of the Damned. Don't want those things? Then you're not who they're for.

^ I don't think they ever "promised" that the game would come out this year. That was the expected release date, which they then changed. Well before now. Are you asking them if they regret waiting until many months before now to change their release date, because of how not-finished the game still is, now, well after they already changed the release date?

That doesn't make any sense. Why is "pirate the inferior product" not a choice? Don't get me wrong, I understand that, matter-of-factly speaking, piracy is based on incentives. But, generally, they're "I want something for nothing." No one's like "Awww, man, I'm all about integrity here, so I buy everything. But, it turns out I can't get a pet mecha-dragon in this game without going back in time and being a Kickstarter backer, or buying that $2 add-on in the store. COMPULSION TO PIRATE, RISING! *berzerk* Besides... when you're talking about tiny exclusive tidbits, why wouldn't "hack/mod that in" be the considered option here? In what way does piracy solve the problem of your missing out on some little exclusive add-on to a game?

See, that's all very true. But none of that is engagement's fault. I get that, if the AI never matches the mechanics at hand, then there's not much point in the mechanics. I'm not saying "See, that means engagement is fine now! ^_^" There's a problem, but the problem is with the current state of many things, not with the sheer concept of melee engagement. I know you weren't the main one insisting otherwise, but you brought it up again, so I responded to you to reference it and re-emphasize this point. It's probably just the optimist in me, but I like to think it's more like installing an AC unit in winter. It's gonna be summer eventually (hopefully). I do hope that, even if the AI never gets super complex, it at least takes advantage of the mechanics at hand. Honestly, I'd rather see it making almost completely random decisions (on occasion, and secondary to basic, "intelligent" decisions...) than just never reacting to things at all. I dunno. It seems like it's not that difficult to get them to not JUST target one thing and stand there forever. Didn't BG have the morale/panic system? You could introduce something like that, that would sometimes cause enemies to, at the very least, flee from melee engagers from time to time, even if they didn't "intelligently" and/or tactically switch targets, etc. I think things can be done, and all hope is not lost. I'm not saying it can't end up bad, but, I'm also confident that they won't just leave it in for its own sake if it just isn't working. However, it's a bit rash for people to keep saying "look! It's not super splendid at the moment! SCRAP IT!". We could say the same thing for any number of systems. Hell, AI. "It's not working well. GET RID OF IT!". Damage. "It's too high right now! STRIP IT!" It's just... a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. The logical progression is "try to get it working better, then, if you can't, omit it."

^ Yeah, but Strength is magic. So, dragons are just really, really magical. Hence the beefiness. 8P

My question there is... what doesn't get to be called a play style? What if I like not having to go do stuff to complete a quest? Is that a "valid" play style? Should the game just let me complete all quests by clicking an auto-complete button, so I don't have to deal with an "annoying mechanic" built to prevent me from playing the game I want to play it (requiring me to actually traverse the game world and engage in dialogues to complete quests and progress the story)?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? As the sheer existence of video games isn't even a necessity, much less the possession of them.

No... that can't be! You take that back! Doors have always been the one person I can trust! Doors have my back! NOTHING can defeat doors!! NO!!! *tears*

Remind them of that time they first encountered ice cream, and didn't want to try it because it looked funny. Then reference the taste of ice cream. Game... set... match. Unless they're lactose intolerant. Then maybe go with something else. 8P

Adjusting the challenge for the purposes of eliminating the challenge is self-defeating. It's a bit like taking a sports game and making a "no rules mode, for people who just wanna play "Jog-Around-And-Kick-A-Ball Simulator 2015." It's like.... taking a puzzle and making it a 1-piece puzzle for people who just want to see the image. Is it still a puzzle, really? Couldn't they just go look at a painting, instead of insisting on getting a puzzle that meets their needs of not needing to be figured out? There's nothing wrong with enjoying games that don't really challenge you. That's not the only type of game in existence. But, there are games for that out there. Or, at the very least, if there aren't enough of them, petition some people to make more of them. But, taking a game that's built on the premise of tactical combat, and making a "breeze-through-combat" mode would just be in some limbo genre, between what those people actually want (to basically just watch a whole interactive story) and what the game actually is.

Which is precisely why it (and damage numbers, among other things) need adjustment. "You need to deal with this melee person engaging you" isn't causing all that. Not having enough ways to do so, and being insta-slain unless you do it just right, is. It's all variable. Croikey. Why is that hard? "Too hot in the room? TEMPERATURE WAS A BAD IDEA!" "Wait, maybe we should try to cool the room or..." "NO MAN! WE'VE GOTTA GET RID OF TEMPERATURE!"

Sweet croikey that dagron is terrifying! I haven't seen the latest trailer yet. Dagrons are scary enough, but a dagron who's mastered bipedal locomotion?! *dramatically removes shades*... dear god...!

I dunno. It kinda sounds like they know there may not be a new build before the X-Mas Holidays, but that it's still possible, if not probable, that there could be. Just sounds to me like they're not omniscient. Which is good. I don't trust those omniscient development teams. "Wait... you know what stretch goals to pick to get to 4 million? YOU KNEW ABOUT ALL THESE BUGS BEFORE YOU STARTED CODING?! O_O!"

I don't mean Blood Bowl, specifically. I was just making an example. I had heard the name, but didn't even know what it was until you brought it up in direct reference, here. It's a good example, I suppose, of how you can make some different games without taking all your games in the same direction in one giant wave. Of course, it seems like it was made up a while back, as a tabletop game, then adapted into a video game. I'm talking more about new/original IP's and such. Just, the ideas these business folk get behind (or allow their creative folks to come up with) in today's big game companies. I realize that it's a business, but so is a restaurant. You can just cover everything in chocolate/cheese, respectively, and you'll probably get a lot of business. But that doesn't get you the position as one of the best restaurants. Hard work, effort, and passion about your food is what does that. The main problem with businesses today is that the formula has become far too much "How can we get money from people?" and not enough "How can we earn people's business?". Better to gain a customer who LIKES to give you their money, than one who simply feels there's not an alternative. I dunno... it's hard to describe in a couple of simple statements. It's not that you can't take into consideration what a lot of people would like. It's just that your priority shouldn't be "maximize the people who would show some interest in this," whilst "make this game idea as great as it can be" gets drowned out.

Well... what happens when your story goes as follows? "Then, the party dashed easily through the wilderness, encountering frighteningly little resistance and overcoming hardly anything. And the world was saved, thanks to the fact that no one even posed a legitimate threat in the first place! The End!" I mean, I'm all for easier mode. But, my problem with that level of "I'm just here for the story" mode (I think Mass Effect 3 did that?) is... at that point, why are you even playing it? What you really want is just an interactive cinematic. You don't even want to jog characters around and manage them and purchase things in any capacity. When it comes to an RPG, the combat and mechanics are kind of part of the story. Alas, the portrait contest is a good idea, though. I may yet break the rust off the old drawing arm and try to partake. Even though I've failed miserably to do so yet (break the rust off, that is... not partake in contests that haven't yet existed for PoE).

No worries. Maybe it'll cooperate enough for a new build before the new year? *gasp* What if you release a new build AT midnight on New Year's Eve?! 8D! We'll have to find something spiffy to drop. Maybe a rucksack? No... Hmmm... A space piglet? *shrug* Also... have you guys tried utilizing a montage to speed up the process?

I get that. I was referring more to the effort quantity. Not so much in just raw effort. I realize hundreds of people work their arses off on every new version of Call of Duty, but someone decides "make it basically exactly like the last one, but with a more ridiculous single-player campaign that starts in space and has an action dog, and no one really likes it anymore" on the conceptual level. Instead of "Hey, let's try to make some improvements and put out something that's very similar, but has actual new stuff that isn't just new for the sake of being new." It's like they're robotizing the creative process. And you can't do that. You can't calculate creativity. And I realize they gather mountains and mountains of numbers, and crunch them all, but, I dare say they always make far more conclusive decisions than the data actually provides. That's why, after 5 iterations of some game, the 6th one finally ends up selling like half as well as the previous. And they're all scratching their heads, "Hmmmm, what went wrong?! We followed the ultimate formula precisely!". It's clearly not the ultimate formula, then. Then, you have indie games come through, from people who are just like "I thought this would be a really great game idea, and I objectively thought about it to make sure it was feasible and intelligently designed." They didn't collect a Hollywood's worth of consumer market research data to design that game. They just mixed their imaginative creative design with their objective technical smarts and make a cool game, and it sells like hotcakes on Steam. People who didn't even like that GENRE say "Hmmm, saw a friend playing it, and it's actually pretty awesome, so I picked it up." My point is just that businesses tend to run things like everything can be calculated with certainty. If they at least took into account that that information only tells you so much, and that there's a whole 'nother factor to human function when it comes to appreciating creatively-designed things, we'd all be better off.