uaciaut

Can someone tell Chris to read the Arcanum manual so he doesn't spend half his time figuring out what things do? D:

Wow people are elitists even when it comes to dward model/design. Next up, picks of how hairy gnome feet should be and how groomed said hair should be. Seriously, even if you did preffer the specific design of a certain element (race in this case) in a game it doesn't mean that all other games should you PRECISELY YOUR prefference/vision of said race to the point of what jewelry they should have in their beards and how everything around them should have runic designs on them. Chill out and be more open minded, we'll see exactly how stuff really feels like when the game's out anyway D: I'm tempted to rewrite that quote as "i find your lack of beard disturbing" and sig it D:

Can we have griffins? D:

This doesn't make any sense (unsurprisingly). They've clearly stated that you get XP per quest resolve, either solved through fighting or diplomacy/w/e. Basically you are technically being rewarded for choosing to fight and solving quests that way. I thought you were whining because you don't get XP per kill so you can't grind **** or something, but now you're saying you don't mind this. So you're not satisfied by the fact that you can resolve quests by non-killing? What, are you gonna have guilt trips that you killed to solve a quest and you could've done it otherwise? It is your choice at the end you know. I'm beginning to think that the only thing that bothers you really the fact that Sawyer said he likes BG2. You just want to hear him say he likes it so you can sleep better at night, don't you?

Does no god at all really remember what she used to do/how she ruled?

Do you have any scars to show from all the RPG's you've played along the years? I heard people really like scars yo. Well... let's see. 2nd edition AD&D was basically 1st edition AD&D minus demons and boobies with a few tweaks. The positives of 3rd edition are greatly outweighed by it's negatives, so I'd play 2nd edition in a heartbeat over 3rd, and fourth is an abomination. So yea... change isn't always good. Especially if one is attempting to reinvent the wheel or fix what isn't broken. If all editions of AD&D were still in print and allowed to compete against one another I'd wager a bunch that 1st/2nd (they are very interchangeable) editions would sell more copies than 3rd, 3rd 1/2, and 4th, despite so many always thinking newer = better. You're not saying how good ad&d editions were, you're saying how good YOU thought they were and saying it's a generaly accepted fact. I enjoyed NWN2 which was based off ad&d 3.5 iirc as much as i did BG2. Actually i can say that i liked the fact that you could use non-str stats for fighting purposes (wis for monk, cha for pal, etc), the "dt" system, etc a lot more than what most of BG2's system had to offer. Also at the very core innovation is what's allowing you to write this message on a forum, use a PC, drive a car etc. It's because people were not satisfied with some things and wanted more. Anyway i don't want to delve into some crappy phylosophy over innovation, the point is that this isn't about innovation per se, it's about people disliking the fact that what's being changed is something THEY don't like or doesn't sound good to them, so they bring these crappy examples of other games that have failed with innovation and think that it enforces their argument to a rule. The fact that the game has a new world is innovation in itself, if they fear it that much they shouldn't get involved with it in the first place. I mean people are literaly giving Blizzard as an example of success here when they have nothing in common with old school RPGS (unless you're saying PE should be a lot more like D2/D3 because they had success) and they're preemptively attacking the way dialogue and quests are being done when they have no details on it whatsoever because "jesawyer hates bg2" (like he's the only one working on this thing).

You should sig that to spare yourself the effort of posting it every time. Then again a bigger post count makes you look better too.

Tell imaginary George Ziets to write them an imaginary reply! D:

What a lousy example. He listed like 90% of what made Baldur's Gate 2 the game it was (quest system, companions, story arc, dialogue choice... what's left exactly?). That's almost *all* the game systems in there. Little bit different then having a difference of "taste". Weak analogy. I'm sure you can do better. She's saying that the guy is turning every detail of every public thing Josh Sawyer is doing into an argument against him, basically he's desperate and drawing whatever straws he can reach to attack the guy. I'm expecting him to attack his political prefferences next Also to add on what you're saying Josh hated about BG2 - at least in the quote Helm gave - he attacked the fact that you HAD to go get Imoen and the story arc, which are things i actually agree with lol. BG2 plot line was almost full cliche - you get kidnapped by someone escape and then track them down to save your childhood friend (who turns out to be your sister for that extra soap opera oomph). The real beauty of BG2 wasn't the pretty foreseeable ending, it was the road you had to take to get there and how you interacted with theworld on your way. Bear in mind that i'm saying this with BG2 being my all-time favourite game, ahead of Planescape and NWN2:MoB which have way better plotlines. These aren't even things you CAN attack because you pretty much don't have any details on the dialogue and quest system yet and you have plenty of incredible people working on those too, i don't get how you can ****ing cry about **** you don't even know about based on the sole fact that someone said they didn't like something you did D: Yes you do. You going to try telling me you've never run into a sequel of a game that played *much* worse than it's predecessor because of "innovation"? LMBO, innovation is THE DEVIL, HEAR THAT PAGANS, THE DEVIL!!! Back to the first edidtion ad&d drawing board with ye!

You were able to change alignment/mentality of some companions in BG2 as well. Having interaction with companion NPC's have a more in-depth affect on their beliefs and perspective would be pretty interesting

Bloodlines is completely different than the IE games. It is 100% linear, has very little loot, is not tactical combat based, etc. That is why quest only xp works and makes sense for Bloodlines. Comparing Bloodlines to Baldur's Gate is like comparing Fallout 1+2 to Fallout 3. They are completely different. I'm saying that the quality of the game can remain completely unaffected by how the XP system works, not that bloodlines is like bg1/2. Well you can read into what i said whatever you want, can't say that i care much either way. The point is you have the right to do whatever you want with your game/money since it's your freedom and if you don't like something about the game you are free to give your opinion/constructive criticism where you are able to. But coming here and whining and crying about how you're not gonna buy it or sell it and how Sawyer is a commandos fan and hates the bg series is extremely retarded and yields nothing profitable for anyone.

It should be a lot like PE

I don't understand why people are so obsessed with the "no xp for combat" part. XP is one part of the game and it doesn't, in any way, make or break it. If you want to play something that focuses on combat and how your "XP" progresses from it you can go back to Dungeon Siege and play it as much as you like to. Meanwhile i'm playing Vampre the Masquerade: Bloodlines for the nth time and i'm still wondering how can i be so attached to a game that gives no direct XP compensation for killing an opponent in combat; protip: it's because it's a great game anyway and the XP mechanic doesn't really break it in any way. And how the hell does it make sense to MISS a ****ing dragon? How the hell do people's brains work that way? The AC mechanic in BG2 was decent because even if damage was heavily randomized, having 6 characters that were hitting the same target effectively meant more hit opportunities and thus more chances for the fights to work as intended; basically unless you were fighting an opponent who was really overpowering you (like rushing to firkaag) the hit/miss factors were telling of your party's strength relative to your enemies'. Now someone came with a better mechanic to portray this in DT and now that they're implementing it everyone's screaming because they can't miss while trying to hit something the size of a ****ing house. And the cherry on top was the cooldowns bawwing. Basically bawwwwing that you can't be arsed to wait or plan your battles around SOME cooldowns because all you want to do is hit the rest button and go straight into the next fight. Don't worry i'm sure there will be an easy difficulty level for people like you. Anyway, again, you don't like the mechanics and think the game is all about how you get the xp, how often you miss and cooldowns and think games like planescape and bg and iwd were all about that, then don't buy it.

Then don't purchase the game, problem solved. I won't even begin to try and attack the "problems" you mentioned in the OP (though "If I level up, and simultaneously, every creature on the planet levels up, I may as well not level up at all" was so stupid it got a laugh out of me), but you don't get to come here and whine about how you don't like some mechanics and so you won't buy the game. The developers don't have any obligation to try and satisfy the apparent needs of every kid that comes to these boards and doesn't like the way XYZ because he thinks/feels that's not the way it should be done and who threatens that he won't buy the game unless these things are made the way they want to (i'd have sooner expected people who would have donated a lot to come and do this btw, not someone who hasn't invested anything and just threatens with his "possible commitment" to it lol). The people that are making the game know what they doing and they don't want to be told what road to follow, that's why they didn't get a publisher in the first place, and the fact that so many people had faith in them to donate so much has a say on how great they are at what they do.

Really like the more in-depth interaction between spells and spell defenses, it makes a lot of sense and is pretty intuitive as well. Will the effects of chanters' abilities be persistent throughout an encounter or will they need to be refreshed every X seconds or so? Also will Ciphers need to be protected throughout an encounter to maintain their abilities uninterrupted? Basic attacks resetting what would become very powerful attacks would(should) make them big priority targets (both for us when we're fighting enemy ciphers and for the enemy ai), if it works that way. P.S. Screenshot looks AWESOME, thanks! <3