Ineth

But it was so short and passive, and didn't really feel fleshed out. You get to read a summary of her backstory, then kill some helpless schmuck or leave him be, that's it. It may have been a good concept for a quest/side-story, but wasn't actually a good quest the way it was delivered IMO.

Pretty sure that Kurren's and Nedyn's quest fail as well, considering that they both die in the riots... (see The Hermit of Hadret House #Walkthrough)

Here's mine, but I'm using the Linux version of the game and I don't think the asset bundles are cross-platform compatible.

It seems that my installation guide for the IE mod is missing one step: Copying the iemod folder from the launcher folder into the game's Managed folder. Most of the mod's features work even you skip this step, but at least two features definitely don't work without it: Custom UI Generic names for backer NPCs

Some of the bounty bosses are pretty stylish, as well:

In conversation with Roedric, two possible anti-Knights options: The dialog file is named "Roedric", but he's called "Wenan" in-game. (Probably renamed during development to avoid confusion with Raedric?) In any case, thanks for the info. Added it to the wiki now. I've been looking through some *.stringtable files before myself, but didn't realize that the *.conversation files could be made sense of as well with only a little more effort.

(Pale elf mage with Gwisk Glas and Greenstone Staff.)

My guide works for game version 3.01. For game version 3.02, you can follow the same guide, except that in step 2 you need to use the new experimental IEMod.pw.dll from here (uploaded by Llere in the nexusmod comment section). Or wait until the new DLL is no longer considered experimental, and is properly uploaded to the nexus mod page. Don't follow those instructions, they are extremely outdated and will not work now that the mod is using the launcher. Make sure to undo whatever you tried of these, before following my guide.

If you build a chanter as a tank, will he still have enough Might for "Dragon Thrashed"?

It seems realistic to me. People won't abandon perfectly good real estate in the (formerly) nicest part of town, just because of a one-time disaster. Especially since the disaster coincided with Waidwens Legacy, and that has ended, so people are hopeful and focus on rebuilding. In the real world, people also always move back into towns that were destroyed by earthquakes or tsunamis or hurricanes - even though they're still on top of the same fault lines and in the same climate, and the risk of another disaster of the same kind is looming over them.

But Resolve has the best dialog choices...

As kvaak mentioned, there are other ways to learn about this. But even if there weren't, what's wrong, on principle, with a little "Butterfly effect" in a game? I think you're looking at choice&consequence too much from a meta-gaming/4th-wall-breaking perspective if you're complaining that the dungeon master (here represented by the game engine) chooses different story paths based on seemingly unrelated player choices or even completely arbitrarily. Dungeon masters are allowed to do that, and as a player you're not supposed to even know what specific thing might have led to which alternative story path or ending being chosen. The only thing that should matter, is that things are internally consistent within the story that was presented in a given playthrough. Is it internally consistent with the game world and story that an undead Raedric might rise and destroy Gilded Vale while you're busy defeating Thaos and didn't have a chance to intervene? Yes, yes it is. The fact that in a different playthrough (a.k.a. a different story being told) the dungeon master might have notified you of it and given you the chance to stop it, doesn't invalidate that. This was fairly nonsensical yes. Why this particular machine turns living people into zombies instead of eating babies' souls like the rest was something that I either missed or that wasn't explained. It was explained that this machine was probably a prototype or failed experiments by the Engwithans - after all, they couldn't have always been masters of animancy, they would have had to have gotten their knowledge by trial and error. Also, like above: Is it internally consistent that a machine which a team of animancers couldn't figure out after months of study, will also not be understood correctly by the new researchers who will study it after you leave, and that they will be stupid enough to turn it on by accident? Yes it is. I never tried a monk PC, but having a monk companion is pretty neat, at least at high levels. During the earlier levels you'll have to put him into heavy armor and babysit him a little, I guess.

Let's hope so, because that could be a pretty interesting story to explore. A was a little disappointed when the ending slides made it sound like the revelation will never reach the masses; the Dyrwood is happy believing that its purges against animancers is what ended the legacy; and that the Watcher will be put off as a lone crazy person whose story no-one will take seriously. But maybe Obsidian simply wanted to keep their options open regarding how the knowledge will spread and how people will react to it, in the sequel.

yay he used my diagram

For simply activating a feature that they already implemented? That's right, walking mode is already in the game, because cut-scenes use it. All that is needed, is to allow players to select a key-binding for it to toggle it on demand. We wouldn't even need a button in the UI. RPGs thrive on "costemtic" things. If presentation didn't matter, the game could simple show players a black screen, with a white dot representing each character, and lots of raw numbers representing (unnamed) stats. Maybe some tactics-freaks would still play it, but for most it wouldn't be a very enjoyable game. Lots and lots of development resources for a game like this necessarily go into "cosmetic" things such as graphics, sounds, music, scenic descriptions that don't advance the plot, etc. Because atmosphere and "feels" is everything in an RPG. A walking mode enhances this captivating atmosphere for many players. And it would cost Obsidian virtually nothing to add it. Why are you so hostile towards it?

If you find out, please add it to this wiki page, because it's missing that particular bit of information as well. PS: Maybe it depends on what you respond during the animancy hearings when the duc asks you who helped you discover the things you learned?

Tarfos is coded as "Human" even though he looks like a Mountain Dwarf:

I had a go at mapping it: LUMINESCENT CAVES / / ---------------------o / \ / \ / \ | temple \ | smashed \ \ | \ \ wall of | \ [chisel] roots o \ \ | / \ | \ | / \ | o-----o-----o | | / | \ | | / | \ / | startled MINES [torch] | / \ / / \ / arm o----- yanked | | TREASURE Only one place with treasure, and only two exists (Mines and Luminescent Caves). PS: Where it says "torch", you actually only need to light the torch if you want to go straight ahead. You can always go left or light by hugging the walls, even if it's dark. This means that you can get both the treasure and get to the Luminescent Caves in one go without expending a torch or chisel, by going: right left right left right pick up treasure turn around right right

I think you've misinterpreted that "getting older" part. It's not that grown-up gamers want to spend as little time as possible playing games altogether, it's that they want to spend as little time as possible on uninteresting (subpar/filler) content and as much times as possible on worthwhile content. And yes, this is a realization that can come with age... kids tend to be more content spending their time on the first thing that comes their way. On a side-note, I also don't understand why you (and others "on your side" of the argument) react so strongly about this, as if the mere idea of a somewhat shorter game directly threatens you and your way of life. After all, if you want to prolong your total gameplay time, the solution is simple: Play two games instead of one. On the other hand, those of us who prefer quality over quantity, have no such simple solution - we have to rely on developers actually focusing on quality during development. Is it a question of cost, not wanting to pay for two games instead of one? Maybe that's the true distinction then, with regard to age: Young gamers try to maximize value-per-dollar, older gamers try to maximize value-per-hour.

That's because some games are made by a highly talented and experienced and well-functioning team with a clear vision and lots of funding, and others... not so much. No one claimed that shortness is an inherent benefit, or that all short games are good, or even that a random selection of existing short games would statistically be of higher quality than a random selection of existing long games. It's just that when you have a given group of developers, and a given budget, and a given timeframe - then quantity vs. quality can become a zero-sum choice, such as: Do you let your writers write additional companions, or let them go over the companions you already have to give them more depth and polish? Do you let your artists and area designers create another area, or let them do a proper paint-over and optimize trash mob placement for the existing areas? Some of us wish that game studios would dare to choose quality over quantity in such situations a little more often. That's really all that Fenstermaker said, too. Again, no one claims that if the devs favor quality in such situations, that their game would automatically become better than any other game made by other developers with different funding etc. Just that it would become better than the same game made in the same circumstances except with quantity being favored. So the whole, "But there are polished long games and terrible short games too!" counter-argument is kind of a red herring.

Pretty sure that's not gonna happen. PoE 3.0 was the last big patch, and if they were going to upgrade the game to Unity 5 they would have done it by now. So you'll have to wait for PoE2 for that. In any case, using an engine with better features does not automatically make a game look as awesome as the engine's expensive demo. The game devs would have to put in a lot of work on their end, to use the engine features properly and fruitfully. And truth be told, PoE doesn't nearly exhaust the possibilities of Unity 4. The 3D lighting on characters looks pretty bad in some areas in PoE, and I don't think the engine is to blame, because it doesn't look like that in other Unity games. Obsidian's devs and 3D artists would probably need to hand-select better lighting and texture parameters for areas and characters, to improve this... Switching to Unity 5, by itself, probably wouldn't make much difference.

Well, apparently not anymore (the ones in Searing Falls)... :D

Strange, I haven't had any crashes with it so far. Are you sure you downloaded and used the correct IEMod.pw.dll for your game version?

How can a thread go so far down the drain that aluminiumtrioxid becomes a shining beacon of reason and sanity in it, relatively speaking...