Lephys

I wonder if he meant that there just aren't any specifically "aggro" mechanics (the same mechanical setup as in other games, namely MMOs now), or if there aren't mechanics of any kind that govern targeting, whatsoever.

First of all... that's not the problem that's trying to be fixed. Rewards come in all varieties, but XP isn't just some shiny reward. It's the life-blood of character progression. So, the problem of "Oh, you like to perfectly understandably do things in peaceful ways, etc.? YOU DON'T GET ANY XP FOR THAT" is the one that's gone. Did you blackmail the bandit leader, or save his daughter somewhere or something, then talk him into stopping his banditry? Good for you. You stopped the banditry in the area, +XP! Did you just kill him? Good for you, you stopped the banditry in the area, +XP! All the other "rewards" (I'd really rather just call them "consequences," if we're going to talk so generally about things affected by your choices) are always going to be very different, but "do I get like 2000 XP? Or do I get like 700 because I didn't fight a tough fight?" doesn't have to be there. Second of all, objective-based XP doesn't mean you won't get XP for killing. Some objectives could be combat-only, while others aren't. That's also not a problem, because something other than "things are dead" is accomplished in an objective. It's something you achieve that's actually relevant to consequences, etc. Running out into the woods and slaughtering 73 wolves doesn't really achieve anything. If those wolves were the ones overpopulating and threatening the local villagers, then it does. See, the game is centered around the narrative, and isn't "Action-to-Progression Simulator 2014!", so it's less important we perfectly emulate in-process experience gain, and more important that we actually build the system around choices and consequences, as related to the world/story/lore. I don't really see the issue. I see the unhappiness, but I don't see the actual problem. If you kill things, you'll still get oodles of XP and you'll progress just fine. If you want to kill at every turn, you probably pretty much can, within reason. I don't think you can slaughter an entire city, mainly because it's probably just impossible. If you could do that, why aren't you a deity already? I don't see where the "you're ruining it for the rest of us, non-combat people!" comes from, when the game still has ridiculous amounts of mandatory combat, (meaning, unless the game simply doesn't give you any XP ever and you never, ever level up, you're going to mainly be getting XP for combat-related things, simply because they're so much more frequent than non-combat options), AND still has combat achieving objectives within this objective-based system. It's not like combat was removed from the "things that in any way lead to XP" pool.

We don't know. Later than now, but earlier than release.

Thing is... "graphics" is a little too all-encompassing to be useful. I mean, the Wii isn't a very powerful machine, but they made the Metroid Prime games (especially 3) look GORGEOUS! Now, they're still not super-crazy high-rez UNREAL 17 character models and stuff, with sneeze-particle simulation and dynamic eyeball reflection lighting. But, for the world the game's presenting, everything looks great. You don't really notice the lower technical architecture of the graphical elements, because its all doing its job. Hmmm... best way I can say this is, I've played and seen many a game with simply amazing "graphics" (super hi-fidelity models and lighting and all that), but that doesn't really employ them well. I mean, the better the passive graphical quality, the more noticeable the tiniest little glitches/things become. If you have a 43-billion-polygon character model, and you don't have the most realistic animation known to man put in there, it's quite a noticeable disconnect. And, some games have used quite lower-end graphics and still made everything look pretty splendid. It's all about your approach, and the goal of the graphics relative to the given game's design.

Yeah, but they only work for people under the age of (insert local adulthood age here). 6_u

Well, in 90% of cases where it's used it usually is followed by insults, questioning the gamer creed or some sort of sexual remark. Not a big surprise people start tiptoeing around it. Here's the thing I hate about that: A) Making females indistinct from male gamers does them no more justice than making them exaggeratedly distinct. Girls are girls, for what it's worth. It's not bad, or good... it just is. B) It's kind of insulting to take a perfectly harmless phrase, and tell people that, because other people mean negative things by it, you must mean negative things as well because you merely spoke the same words. People with a cause really need to learn a thing or two about opposing the ideas their against, and not the words people decide to use. Things can be said with all manners of connotation.

That is true. The first screenshot of the inventory/trade screen I saw, I thought "man, that IS hard to read!" But then, when I got to watch the demo video, on the 1080p setting, it was actually not that bad at all. I mean, it could probably still use a sprinkle of extra contrast between the text and the wood, but... video quality can be deceiving.

... Maybe we could introduce some kind of iron contamination, so that most looted weapons were significantly less useful.

I always have hopes (though no longer high hopes... just hopes) for these modern games. But... man, they so often overplay their hand. I really just wish they'd stop tossing about super vague adjectives and such and, when someone asks "Hey, how cool will crafting be?", answers with an actual example/breakdown of how crafting will be. Or, "Hey, what will the stronghold be like?" Just tell us what the design plan is. I mean, crap, the Suikoden castle/stronghold management from way back when was far more in-depth than most modern stuff. But, the point is, be clear about it. Don't just toss out "You'll have OVER 110 options for upgrades! 8D!" That's great, until it's "+1 income, +2 income, +3 income, +4 income, +1 weapon sharpening, +2 weapon sharpening, +3 weapon sharpening," and so forth. They want us to get all excited about "over 110" upgrades, then we find out it's all just a big list of passive upgrades. Pretty mundane, really. What will you get to do in the "exciting and dynamic" stronghold management? One thing: accrue passive bonuses. But they don't say that. Ugh, I'm so tired of that happening. No one's gonna fault you for making a game that's lesser than what they want, NEARLY as much as they will if you make them expect what they desire, then deliver less than that.

I heavily considered continuing it, heh. Since I didn't, as penance, I'll deliver the pun of the day: That big purple machine is so mysterious... I can't even begin to Glan-fathom what it does! 6_u

BG can be if you rush out of Candlekeep at level 1. Or if you're just a Mage. That first guy that tries to kill you in that building near the barracks got me a couple of times before I got lucky enough to end him with me Quarterstave...

Such an influx of people, . I shall get you guys' titles in motion, ^_^

They do. I don't think I was specific enough. I always hope for actual cloaks instead of capes. I shouldn't have said "flowy," as it was misleading.

Wasteland 2's models were WAYYYYYYYY more primitive than what we're seeing in here. Just for the record. Honestly, these are pretty freakin' gorgeous for a game that isn't close-up 3rd-person or 1st person, and doesn't really happen in a "3D" world (I know it's 3D, but things are largely 2D that are appearing within it). I don't think graphical fidelity for the sake of graphical fidelity really gets us anywhere. As for weapon-switching, if there's going to be an "action time" for the weapon-switch (which there should be), then it could be kind of interesting if there was a "drop" option to simply drop your current weapon in order to more quickly draw your other weapon (basically instantaneous weapon-swapping), at the cost of losing the dropped weapon until you pick it up once more.

Tali and Garrus can hook up?! Now I feel bad for stealing her... haha. I think the best romance in Mass Effect is between Joker and EDI.

Ahh, makes sense. Many thanks! I guess my only remaining question is, other than the graphical effect letting you know that your "elemental" weapon dealt its extra damage, how do you know how much damage you actually dealt in, say, Crushing, and how much you dealt in, say, Burning? Is that included in the verbose date for that line in the combat log? I guess it just seems useful to be able to pause and look back at the log to see "Oh, every time I hit this guy with my crushing weapon, I'm doing pretty good Crushing damage, but he's only taking like .25 damage from the fire effect. He must laugh in the face of fire damage." If that makes sense. Again, I could've missed it (it was all scrolling quite quickly, and all I could do was rapidly pause the video), but all I saw was "hit such-and-such for X Crushing damage", or something along those lines. My immediate thought in that fight was "How much damage is that guy taking from being on fire?" Or does the weapon-effect damage just count as additional whatever-damage-type-the-weapon-is damage?

I think that was just a "for what it's worth" comment. I don't think he meant "And therefore you should never have even asked this! BEGONE, FOUL DEMON!"

Yeah, as it stands, the only "special" attack effect I saw represented in the demo's combat log was the Ooze's corrosive attack. Well, and the trap-floor's fire damage. Again, I might've missed it, but I didn't even see any evidence that Calisca's torch was, mechanically, attempting and failing (or succeeding, for that matter) to inflict any kind of burn effect on her foe. Just curious about that. I know it's an early build, so I just kind of reserve judgement as if it's an actual design flaw, and figure it's something not-quite-finalized.

You have every right to feel that way, but it doesn't exactly make multiplayer mandatory. I find it a bit extreme that the value of every other aspect of the game is so far below multiplayer that it warrants purchasing abstinence. I mean, if the game had multiplayer, but everything else was stripped from it, would it be a definite buy?

You're right, and that's what I should've said -- gamble. At that point, it would just be a big, convoluted slot machine. Obviously you could only piss people off by being caught trying to pilfer from them so many times (if even more than 1) before it's no longer feasible to even complete the game. "All the guards are going to murder me on-sight now, in this town where I need to speak with such-and-such to progress the story." So, you'd have to reload. And if you succeeded? You get free money. Potentially from anyone with pockets in the entire game. It's cool in a sandboxy way, but, it really isn't necessary to be able to actively gamble with every single pocket you come across. *shrug* I like fully-active pickpocketing skills. I just don't think they really offer much in a game like this. So long as the game always gives you the opportunity to attempt to pickpocket in significant situations (as in, whenever there's a quest or situation that could warrant the potential forced acquisition of an item from someone -- basically, if you had a reason to be searching for something that might be on that person), then it'll be fine. Need to get into a house for some reason? Maybe you can pickpocket the key from the owner. Need to put a stop to some kind of official business? Maybe you can pickpocket the sealed document from a messenger's satchel or something, if you can find out who has it. The typical approach to pickpocketing is "see everything that's on their person, THEN maybe get caught when you try to take something," which is a bit silly, anyway. It at least shouldn't be done like that.

Obviously, he's playing hard-to-get with the interviewer.

I try not to disappoint.

I do always hope for full, flowy cloaks instead of back-tapestry cloaks. BUT, I'll take them! 8D

I might've missed it, since the stuff scrolls so quickly, but this fire effect didn't seem to be logged in the combat log. I was just curious... is that because of an intentional setting (only show some things in combat log, or something to that effect)? Or is the combat log simply incomplete at the moment? Also, I believe you've said in the past that mousing-over an entry in the combat log will show all the parameters that led to the resulting graze/hit/miss/effect, etc.. Is that still true, and is there an option to show an expanded combat log by default?

*Rolls Kindness check*... Yep, it seems we'll do it. Proud to have you, 8D