Ffordesoon

@Lephys: It's funny, I wrote a bunch of stuff about conjured weapons when I was writing my last post, but then I cut and pasted it into a text file because I didn't think it would be of much interest to y'all. The issue I have with conjured weapons, to the extent that I do have one, is pretty simple: they're never any different from regular weapons mechanically. How do you think that could be mitigated?

Here you go: http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2464 Worth reading the whole thread, but b0rsuk's idea is the one I was talking about. Oh, and the picture at the beginning that doesn't show up is the one forfs just posted, so don't worry about it.

BTW, Prime, the books you want to read for more like Torment are Lord Of Light by Roger Zelazny and The Book Of The New Sun by Gene Wolfe. I mean, you should also read them 'cause they're awesome, but Colin McComb said in the T:ToN AMA that those two books in particular were massive influences on both PST and the new game. EDIT: And I apologize for the apropos-of-nothing nature of this post. I wanted to attach this to my last long post, but I wasn't sure you'd see it there.

Oh, ToEE looks worlds better than NWN2. The Aurora engine looked like garbage the first time it was ever used, and only aged poorly from there.

Dark Souls. Oh, wait. Eternal Champions. Wait, no. Eternity's Child. No, Beyonce isn't in the game (STRETCH GOAL!). From Here To Eternity—d'oh! Hmm, what would communicate the vibe of the game successfully...? Super Soul Sounds of the Seventies? Man, I can see why inXile went with the generic-sounding "Tides of Numenera." It is tough to come up with a name for a fantasy series that doesn't sound like the name of every other fantasy series. "Blankety-blank: Blank of Blank" is such a standard construction that it's really difficult to think outside of that model. Project: Eternity may be a good name, actually. Or just Eternity. The Elder Souls?

I... think so? As I said, I can't recall which games do what you're talking about, so...

Admittedly, I too am struggling to see where JFSOCC's idea differs from the pickpocketing mechanics in many other games. I swear I've played at least one RPG with that exact mechanic. I don't think it's a bad idea, necessarily. I think it is peachy keen, in fact. But I do have to concede to AGX that it didn't strike me as very original when I read it. Then again, it could be one of those ideas that's so obvious that I've made up a bunch of games that use it in my head. Or maybe I'm not grasping the subtle nuances of the idea. In any case, the idea isn't invalid simply because it's been done before.

I certainly agree with that. EDIT: Er, the last sentence of KaineParker's post, I mean.

We discussed this on the Wasteland 2 boards a couple months back, and someone (I forget who, or if it was even a single person) came up with a really good idea for it. I don't remember the exact idea, but I do recall that it was meant to simulate the grab-it-and-go nature of real pickpocketing. Like, you would get more proficient at guessing what people had in their pockets as you picked more pockets, or something, but you'd start out just guessing, or something. I'll go look for that thread. It might be useful.

Why not give the players control over that, then?

Oh, has he? Cool, then. Doesn't necessarily preclude cross-class equipment, but it's a nice touch.

@moridin84: Wouldn't that be a monstrously inefficient way to design the circles? I mean, I'm no programmer, but what if the circles, say, blend in with too many of the environments, or something? Wouldn't it be more efficient from a production perspective to have an easy way to switch colors?

Morrowind had tons of lore books as well, you know.

@LadyCrimson: Bah, semantics! No, cloud saving is a pretty big deal to me. Admittedly, my living situation might not be typical. I live with my parents (yeah, yeah, get yer jabs in ), who are divorced and remarried, and I tend to go from one parent's house to the other regularly. I have different but roughly equal comps at each house. I'm already a forgetful person, and the hassle of manually copying new save files into Dropbox every time I go from one comp to the other is annoying enough when I remember to do it. So, you know, a quick set-it-and-forget-it cloud-saving thingy like Steam? Pretty much essential for me. At least, if I wanna play PE at both houses. I realize it's not that important to a lot of people, but in my current situation, yeah, I'd say "sensible reason" is the correct term.

It's odd to me that there's so much resistance to the idea of a spellcaster with a sword when "spellsword" builds have been a widely accepted feature of D&D for a very long time. I mean, assuming you can call any feature of D&D "widely accepted." Which you can't, if acceptance of a feature is measured by the number of players who kvetch about it. If this is indeed a problem, the solution is pretty simple: let magic users wield swords if they like, but impose a harsh penalty to, say, Stamina regeneration speed. Stack the penalty according to how many pieces of class-inappropriate gear they're using. That way, you get casters using warrior gear for spells and quick bursts of melee awesomeness, but you don't have a bunch of overpowered Dovahkiin-style generalists running around. If the devs want to restrict casters further, they could have certain spells/schools of magic/grimoires/spells at higher levels require a focusing object to be held in the weapon and/or shield hand of the caster. That would work well with the current inventory system. Couple of ideas worth looking at, anyway.

@KaineParker: Oh, I get it, believe me. I'm just saying there are sensible reasons to prefer the Steam version, and that I really wish GOG could be at parity with Steam in terms of convenience. I get why they aren't, but it'd be nice. To be honest, I wish Obsidian would sell it through the Humble Store more than anything. I can understand why they wouldn't, I suppose, but being able to have a DRM-free GOG version as a backup for my Steam version would solve all of my issues in a way the current mutually exclusive choice doesn't.

BG: EE is nice. It's not essential; plenty of mods do more or less the same things, though the zoom feature and extra content are nice bonuses that you won't get anywhere else, and it does seem to be slowly growing into its own thing. They added a couple more monk kits in the latest update, for example, and the game is actually rebalanced for the BG2 classes, which isn't the case with the BG Trilogy mod, as far as I'm aware. I would say it's worth getting overall, but a current purchase is more of an investment in potential than anything. And yeah, PST does wear its systems like a suit that's a size too small for it. 2E was always kind of crap, but the overly prescriptive D&D alignment system doesn't quite work in the game's favor either. One of the big reasons I'm looking forward to Tides of Numenera is because the Numenera PnP system feels as though it was created specifically in response to the first Torment's mechanical flaws. I was initially disappointed that they were going with another PnP system, but when I read up on Numenera, I was like, "Son of a...! Monte Cook addressed all of my complaints without even knowing it!" It helps that they're acutely conscious of the game's other mechanical flaws, of course. I sort of wish someone would do a total conversion of PST using the Numenera ruleset, as that would clearly be the superior way to play the game going forward. (NUDGE NUDGE, INXILE AND MODDERS. ) It's also worth noting that the CG portraits have not aged well at all, particularly those in the bestiary. They have that "made out of paint-coated pipe cleaners" look common to the prerendered models of the day. Every time I look at the Black Abishai's picture, I feel like I'm flipping through the first-year Digipen portfolio of one of those dudes that dropped out and now makes those creepy CG porn images, you know? The ones that slap you in the face with the realization that the uncanny valley is still a thing? Er, hmm, I know I was going to make a point, but I can't remember— OH! Yeah, I guess I should ask you if you're playing with the PST Tweak Pack and Fixpack, Raz. So, er, are you? Stackable items make a big damn difference.

If you want cloud saving, it's not the sensible decision. I wish GOG offered that.

@Jarmo: Care to say more about your reasoning for liking D&D as a cRPG system? Not gonna try to convince you otherwise or anything. I just like to understand opinions that differ from mine. @Raz: No, I understand what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that the conversation with Mourns-For-Trees is an interaction with a character in a cRPG that actually made you think. As you mentioned, it's not a metagame-y, explicitly transactional conversation. It's a quiet, reflective one that doesn't start out seeming like it's going to go anywhere important. But if you pay attention and really think about what's being said, your imagination and your conscience are activated. The conversation moved you, in a very real way. It's not "go here, kill this/get this thing for me, come back." There's no immediate, visceral reward dangled in front of you. It's a guy hoping and praying he can convince you to care about something he cares about, knowing all the while he can't force you to care, or even to listen. How many cRPGs - hell, games - have conversations like that? For all the preening elitist bluster of the cRPG purist ("cRPGs are simply more intellectual than your dudebro twitch action games!"), how many cRPGs actually try to make you think about anything more than which spell to use, and of those, how many succeed?

@Raz: Exactly. You're getting it. It's the moments like that one that make Torment a special game. It's such a gloriously weird interaction by RPG standards, and something that would be unceremoniously chopped out of most RPGs for being "boring" or "pointless." But it isn't boring, and it isn't pointless. It's just not an interaction that's immediately understandable and gratifying. And if that bothers you as a player, it's not like the other interactions are wrong. If you don't care about the trees, you can tell him as much. You don't get anything for it, but that doesn't make it the "wrong" answer. It's more of a "What did you expect, that he was gonna force you to care?" kind of thing. You didn't care, and you told him you didn't care. Choice, consequence.

Sure, I get both of those issues. And if we were talking about implementing whole separate modes of play to accomodate every taste, I'd even agree with you. But stuff like changing the color of the selection circles is presumably dead simple to implement, doesn't change the core of the product, and makes a difference for any players who want to use that feature. It's a pretty obvious win-win from where I'm sitting. It's also worth noting that this is a PC game. PC gamers expect crazy amounts of options to customize their experience.

@Prime: That's a really good point about Torment, and I think that's what many people don't "get" about it. It's an unusual game in that its greatness really isn't in the systems, which are mostly just functional "B-minus" ones, but in the feelings evoked by the player's interaction with the systems. That's actually true for all the IE games, albeit in different ways. The IWD series is the strongest mechanically, but it's often considered lesser than the other two, because it doesn't quite activate the player's imagination in the same way.

@moridin84: And why is that bothersome, exactly? "AGH, DAMMIT, I HAVE TOO MANY OPTIONS!" Really? You're gonna sit down to play PE, open the options menu, and whinge for fifteen minutes about a bunch of options that are helpful for some people even if you don't give a crap about them? Or are you just going to change the options that are relevant to your interests real quick, start the game, and probably never think about them again?

@rjshae: I'm not sure I see your point. Either that, or you don't see my point. One of the two. I do understand the purpose of codex entries, and actually quite like them. The codex entries in Dragon Age: Origins were my favorite part of the game, in fact. My point was that it always irritates me that codex entries aren't integrated meaningfully into gameplay, which is especially troublesome in examples like the (half-assed) one I gave, where information I as a player believe is pertinent to my current predicament is unavailable to me because the game expects me to play it a certain way. In fact, let's go back to that example and add something to it: a shifty-looking merchant I meet on the road is, according to his codex entry, suspected of a murder or two. While that information is perhaps worth keeping in mind when I talk to him, it's not necessarily essential. What if I'm looking for a murderer in the immediate area, though? Suddenly, the knowledge that a suspected murderer is in front of me is very pertinent indeed. But if my character is not permitted to know what I as a player know, then I get frustrated, because that guy could be the murderer I'm looking for. Now, if the game's writers have any respect for the player at all, the guy probably isn't the real murderer. There aren't many writers of RPGs who are that bad at their job. But what if he knows something about the real murderer that I can use to my advantage? What if he knows the murderer holds a grudge against one of my party members? What if the real murderer is his twin? There are so many things I should question this man about, and yet I don't get to do that until the Dramatic Reveal that the real murderer is the guy's twin? It's stuff like that I find actively unfair, and although I've never been railroaded to that extent, I have played Bioware games where I knew what would happen before it happened because of stuff in the codex. One series of games that actually did codex entries right, BTW? The Witcher games.

@AGX-17: Ah, I see. Allow me to retort. Putting aside the fact that your argument is based on a view of the world very nearly as tenuous and "magical" as that of the people you criticize (and I say this as someone who generally agrees with your view of the world), and that elements of reality and fantasy can commingle in fictional universes with relative ease, said argument simply has nothing to do with the OP's argument. The OP suggested looking to current science as an inspiration, not that we should simply shove the whole of scientific thought into a fantasy game. He also suggested that perhaps some elements from the periodic table could be adapted to the universe. I noted that some of them already are in use in many fantasy universes (iron, gold, etc.), and as such, it did not strike me as a particularly large leap to use them in a fantasy universe. You seem to have confused this with shoving physics and chemistry textbooks into PE wholesale. While I would agree that science is not magic and magic is not science, both can coexist in a fictional world as long as that world is internally consistent. There are literally thousands of examples from all media that make this argument for me, including the entire "science fantasy" subgenre. If you don't care for such works, fair enough, but it is, I think, rather rude to posit your opinion on the matter as fact. As to the acidic little retort my puzzled query regarding your posting habits seems to have kicked off: I apologize, it was not my intention to offend. I admit, it's not a question that can be asked without causing at least a small amount of offense, given that it's a bit of a backhanded insult in many ways, but I had hoped to minimize the offense as much as possible. I'm sorry I failed to minimize it further. That said, I find it telling that you chose to respond in the way you did. I humbly submit that responding with a mixture of veiled insults and a near-explicit insinuation that I should get off of this forum if I don't like having veiled insults lobbed at me does not exactly help your case. There is also a rather large gap between critical thinking and relentless negativity. The former is essential to reasoned discourse. The latter is lethal to it. One can be critical without being a jerk. I shall attempt to acquaint myself with your posting history, however, as you are correct that I could be going off of a mistaken impression gleaned from a small sample of posts.