Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

About Prime-Mover

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. The entire world needs some German wrath. This would be so unfunny if you're this Luckmann http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Complaints_about_Gothemasticator's_ban_of_User:Luckmann http://luckmann.deviantart.com/
  2. Do you have a source for that? The best information I could find is steamspy, which says that there's approximately 377667 owners. I'm guessing about 50000 of them are probably backers. Well that's why I used the words approximately. None of us here know the real figures. All we can do is make estimates. I just gave a rough estimate based on what we currently know. At present... the STEAM sales are selling at approx 4000-6000 per day from what I could see in the charts at Steamspy. I estimated approximately 400,000 sales which is reasonable. I can definitely say... the estimate I gave is reasonably accurate. And again this is ONLY regarding STEAM sales... and doesn't even include CD/DVD sales or GOG. NOW i'll go into speculation... We know that Obsidian estimated their asking budget of 1.5 million to produce the game on Kickstarter.... they got almost 4 million. From what I can see in the Making of Video... its likely they never spent that full 4 million and the ACTUAL cost was probably in the 2 million range to make, because it sure doesn't look like they splurged... so the Cost vs Risk might even be smaller than I originally stated. So they've still got the leftovers to be able to guarantee an expansion pack too on top of that which is why they're already saying its in the works. The cost vs profit margin on this is HUGE. No matter how I look at it... this one has been an overwhelming success, an its only been what? A month and a half? I don't follow. Steamspy says specifically 377,667 ± 16,323. That is the best approximation we have. Not 400.000. And as the other person said, all the backers who opted for a steam copy are part of that number, which is a significant chunk. That puts the total number closer to 300.000 than 400.000. It's still not bad, but I just don't see why you insist on calling 400.000 a reasonable approximation. It's not. http://steamspy.com/app/291650
  3. Sure Obsidian is a fairly large company, but this was sort of a side-project, and not some big company-wide production. According to the documentary (if I recall, or maybe it was a written interview), they said that around ten people were working on it. That's pretty small, and underscores the point you are responding to.
  4. First of all, whether you reach the level cap depends on how much of the content you are exploring (obviously). I never made it past lvl 9 on my first playthrough, but I really just focused on, and enjoyed the main quest/story too much, and wanted to see it develop. So I didn't go out of my way to solve side quests. I also pretty much lost the drive to kill stuff, in part due to the no-xp for kills (kinda) thing, which again got me to focus on story. If you are that kind of player, then you either wont make the cap, or you wont care if you do. If you however are the kind of gamer that is greatly motivated by lvl'ing up, and seing the character progress in terms of abilities etc., then you'll probably hit the cap (cus that's your goal), and you'll hate when it happens (because it was your primary motivation). So it really depends on the kind of player you are, or what your main goal and motivation is. edit: if you are the second kind of player, I'd recommend using the IE mod to adjust xp progression.
  5. Since no one for whatever reason answered your question yet, I'll try: I believe "completionist" means player who explored every single area there is, killed every single enemy he was able to find, took and completed every single quest/task. Read every single book/piece of lore too, but that one is kinda irrelevant to current discussion. Here you go If that is the meaning then I am a completionist. I like to explore, I like doing the side quests, so what is wrong with that? I also like having quests I can't do for some reason or quests that have different options. Choices that matter in the game are important to me. I don't want to join every faction, be able to do every single quest in the game the first playthrough. So what am I? I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that at all. The problem is however that when not every gamer is like that, it becomes tricky, though not impossible for the dev's to make the game enjoyable for everyone.
  6. Less than 10 words in, first point out of three, and you've already failed basic reading comprehension. There is no price for participation, you know. Please elaborate and tone down the hostility. I assume you are interested in a meaningful exchange, and a in making progress in this discussion.
  7. Bull. It's not an issue of a high or low level cap, it's an issue of pacing, and has nothing to do with "indoctrination". Content is meant to be played, to draw a hard line between "completionists" and "casuals" is ridiculous, and creates the false dichotomy of two groups for mental midgets to lump everyone together into and label. The real world with real people doesn't work that way. A lot of IE veterans even prefer lower-level play, and consider IWD2 and ToB to practically make the system fall apart. There is currently no problem with finishing the game with only doing a bit of the sidequests and primarily the main quest, and you should end up at level 12 by the end anyway, even though level 9 would do, whereas if you do most of the quests, you end up level 12 long before Twin Elms (assuming some missed quests/deliberate avoidance and about ~7 levels of Od Nua). The pacing is shot to hell. You are making a few claims here: 1) Playing one type of game (the IE games) over and over in the last 15 years is not going to affect people expectations regarding how to play POE. 2) The problem is pacing 3) Drawing a hard line between completionists and casuals does not reflect a real division among gamers, and if someone suggests this, they are a "mental midget" whatever that means (I assume it's derogatory tough). Unfortunately there's no argument to support any of these claims, so you're making it difficult to engage with you in a meaningful and reasonable manner. I will try though. Note, the lack of argument doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong. It just doesn't motivate good discussion. 1) I'm simply speculating here, as I mostly rely on my own experience here, but it's also the impression that I get from reading on these forums, and the fact that the official stance has always been to make a IE-type of game. If you don't think this has affected people's expectations regarding the type of game POE is, then entirely ok. 2) The problem is whatever the problem is for the people playing. In my case, pacing wasn't a problem on the first playthrough. In many other cases, it might be. I wasn't making a judgment regarding other people's experiences, I was simply giving an account of why different people may have different experiences. I didn't feel any pacing issues, because that is contingent on a more completionist playstyle than the one I was ascribing to here. Does 99% of the people feel differently? Cool, but as I use the terms, that means they are further towards the completionist end of the spectrum. 3) I wasn't drawing a hard line. Oh and **** you, you ****ing piece of ****. Now wasn't that nice? Didn't that emotional language just make my claims so much more convincing?
  8. Yeah, but it sounds stupid, or more modestly: I can't make sense of it. And even if we accepted that notion, who's to say that you're not the exception here? Who knows whether the average player reaches lvl 12? Clearly I'm proof of concept here, but two people's experiences is hardly enough to establish a pattern. So you now need to actually produce an argument or evidence to support your claim. For what it's worth, my whole party hit level 12 before doing any Act III quests (but Act III had started, I loaded the Twin Elms map and then left immediately), before doing level 8 of the endless paths, and with ~4 bounties left to do. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case for many of the IE veterans around (especially BG2). Those games with their high lvl-cap, their epic loot and combat xp has indoctrinated many people to a fairly completionist playstyle. I however never got that urge on my first playthrough of POE though. Perhaps because people in the forums were already vocal with regard to the fact that the game was very magnanimous in terms of dishing xp. But I am proof that sticking mainly to the main quest does not result in an overabundance of xp, and even though I stuck to the main story, I never felt like I went out of my way to acquire avoid getting xp.
  9. Yeah, but it sounds stupid, or more modestly: I can't make sense of it. And even if we accepted that notion, who's to say that you're not the exception here? Who knows whether the average player reaches lvl 12? Clearly I'm proof of concept here, but two people's experiences is hardly enough to establish a pattern. So you now need to actually produce an argument or evidence to support your claim.
  10. You mean "possible"? After finishing Ch. 2 I kind of just let the main story dictate my actions. I didn't go out of my way to seek out side-quests, didn't go to the depts of Od Nua because it felt gay, and didn't take any bounties because they were too difficult when I first tried. I also didn't speak to NPC's unless the main quest dictated it, and I didn't engage with funnny looking NPC's unless they directly approached me. Lastly, because this just sounds wierd: In what way does the existence of an exemption prove a rule? edit: just went back and checked again. I was at lvl 9, not 8.
  11. I completed the game with all my dudes at lvl 8, non-completionist. I don't see your point.
  12. @Luckmann 1) Again, you are under no obligation towards me. It's a matter of logic. If you are claiming to be reasonable, you are contradicting yourself by not being reasonable. 2) Is there a gender issue? Maybe, maybe not. It could be a PC vs. anti-PC issue. It could be a conservative vs. anti-conservative issue. It's not entirely clear to me. But there is clearly some underlying ideological division going on, and it's clearly not just an issue of reasonable vs. unreasonable, though I believe you when you say you see it as such. I think it's clear that you're wrong though, but I'm not going to defend that claim further in this thread. 3) We disagree about the english language proficiency of the average young-ish scandinavian. 4) Yes, I get it. You don't care what other people think about your unintentional antagonism, but still, you kind of do according to your reply. Whatever. My point was never about whether it was appropriate to call an idiot "idiot" and the like. I do however think it's this lack of courtesy very unhelpful with regards to attaining the goals one has for engaging with those one disagrees. But that's a different point. You brought it up for some reason, and I still don't know why. Being charitable does not mean to sugar coat something. It means giving people the benefit of the doubt, and attack the strongest possible interpretation of their view. Not for the sake of their fuzzy feelings, but for the sake of relevance, and letting the most reasonable position win out. If the most charitable interpretation is that the other dude or chick is an idiot, well then by all means call them an idiot if it serves some prudent purpose to do so. It almost never is the most charitable interpretation though. 5) Yes, evidence is groovy. And sure, drawing conclusions in unexplored cases based on good evidence is fine. That's not what's going on here though. There was no real evidence. It was all speculation, which was then put forth as evidence. Seriously, none at all, and certainly nothing to justify the level of antagonism in play here.
  13. [1]Don't be ridiculous, you know that's not going to happen. I gave a short and concise "in a nutshell" on the topic when asked, and have absolutely no inclination and certainly no obligation to supply you with an exhaustive explanation. If you want to lump us all together and believe that there is some kind of sinister plot going on where everyone belonging to whatever ideological outlook you attribute whoever you desire to vilify, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. I don't think anyone that feels that they are on side A or B in this arbitrary line in the sand that you have drawn actually cares enough to defend themselves. You appear intent on politicizing and label people, grouping them into neat little boxes for you to bully or cherish, but the fact of the matter is that people can independently come to the same general conclusions on a topic without being cohorts or in cahoots. I sometimes find myself agreeing with Volourn, someone I have repeatedly and somewhat jokingly referred to as literally worse than Hitler. Me and Monte Carlo tend to agree on many things, and completely disagree on others. Stun has argued for murderhobo-based experience, something I hate with a vehemence. When Sensuki and I have talked about the Attribute Bonuses, we both agree that there's a problem, but disagree on the solution. Even PrimeJunta has mellowed in his reverence and blind faith in Sawyer as of late, and we often agree on certain topics, yet are in many ways polar opposites. Gkathellar is another SJW lunatic, but still tend to be completely reasonable in other regards, as have been seen across the boards. It is ridiculous to lump people together because they disagree with you, and assign them some uniform ideological label, people that more often than not have never even spoken directly to eachother (on these boards, there's about three people I've had direct contact with via PM on any meaningful level; Sensuki, Karkarov and Osvir). You want something from me, and I deny you that. It is not my job to educate you on matters that most thinking individuals would have no problem grasping. [2] That's simply not true. A lot of people make no effort to that at all, and most do not even think of it on a concious level. There are some, of course, that do try to do that. Most of what you say is of course entirely true, however. But the option is that an individual makes the concious decision to be irrational or unreasonable, which would be.. farcical, really. So despite the potential pitfalls, I will continue to strive to be reasonable and judge most topics as fairly as I can, and take indications to the contrary under advisement. The fact that you say "four counts of overly emotional language" is funny, though. Which "overly emotional" language was that? Actually, nevermind, I'd rather you don't respond. Even the question might be misconstrued as me actually caring what you think of my language. I realize that my language may sometimes come across as haughty, but that's entirely unintentional, and I apologize. While I try to keep my language on a certain level, I tend to forget that it's not always appreciated, which is likely due to the fact that English isn't my native language. I've learned most of my English through games and books and the peripheral effects of cultural imperialism. [3] See, you attribute hate where there is none. Disdain, perhaps, irreverence, maybe, but not hate. He tends to come up in topics and I question many of his decisions. In context, it is incredibly relevant who you direct blame at. I see no reason to direct blame towards the innocent. If I can pin something on a specific person, I greatly prefer to do that rather than to express dislike for people I don't even know (or know of). It's the very reason why we say "Sawyer and muh balance" when discussing Immunities, but say "What the hell are you thinking, Obsidian?" when discussing Attributes. There's a huge difference, and I think that it's quite reasonable. And when I see Sawyer doing something good, or something that's a result of his particular hangups or ideas, I'll praise him for that too, based on that merit. [1] You are under no obligation towards me to do anything, and it's a fairly silly interpretation to assume that this was my suggestion. But if you label yourself and your views as 'reasonable', there is an onus on you to actually behave as such on pain of contradiction. That's not an obligation towards me though. Beyond that, you are again being uncharitable. No, I don't think there is a 'conspiracy' or a 'sinister plot'. I do however think there is a tendency on both sides of that debate to intepret certain things as automatically fitting within some binary for or against us framework. "You said X? surely you beling to group X. You said Y, certainly you belong to group Y then". That framework is indicative of an ideology with regards to the particular topic, or something broader. This is not to politicize the issue, as it certainly doesn't have to fit with any traditional political lines. But is there an ideology in play with regards to this gender issue? I think that's quite clear. [2] I of course can't speak for what people you associate with, or which one of us has an experience which is most indicative of the general states of affairs. However, in my experience, people in general consciously try (though not necessarily effectively) to be objective to some extent. The point is simply that the more confident they are in their objectivity, the less they try to actually be objective. Lastly, to the point about language: both affirming and denying seems to imply that you care what people think. But that's ok. I have no huge beef with that in most cases. That being said, no I don't buy your excuse with not being a native english speaker. You are like most Scandinavians under 40 (which you are right?) - like myself - confident in your english language skills, and you clearly have a sufficiently extensive vocabulary to avoid unintentionally antagonizing those with whom you disagree. [3] If you don't like the term "hatred", substitute it with what you consider the appropriate generic notion of resentment. That revision will hardly undermine the crux of my claim. Your view regarding Josh is not on a case to case basis. Instead there is a clear tendency to interpret most things Sawyer within a predetermined negative outlook. And that is hardly reasonable.
  14. [1] No, I want you to give relevant and carefully thought out reasons for your position, all while construing the counterposition you are responding to in a charitable manner. I want you to do this especially because you countless of times refer to yourself, and those who see things your way as "reasonable". Simply posting an image macro is neither. Further, I fail to see why it is "absolutely ridiculous" to claim that a certain ideological outlook is the greater cause of the division on this topic. And you seem to have no hesitation in affirming something like that diagnosis on those who's view are in opposition to yours, all the while maintaining that you are simply being reasonable. That however is indeed demonstratable false (recall, that you are unreasonable does not necessarily mean you are wrong!). There were various ways of construing the events, but - and I repeat myself here - you and others were had a single narrow focus with regards to why Obsidian made those decisions. There simply couldn't be any other reason!. And sure, there were people on the other side of the debate who presumably were as one-sided in their approach. But that hardly vindicates you (and those like you) as being reasonable here. [2] First of all, saying you don't care, followed by four counts of overly emotional language, isn't going to support that claim. Secondly, everyone makes a point to try to argue factually and objectively. However, most people fail to do so, especially when they are confident in their objectivity. In fact this is a general tendency. The more objective people think they are, the less objective the tend to actually be. The reason is - obviously - that (over)confidence undermines the self correction. So your arrogance in these matters is fundamentally misplaced. You were not being reasonable, you did not represent the reasonable position here. Not that this makes the position you were reacting to any more reasonable mind you. Both sides were simpy oozing of discusting self-rightiousness. And FFS, this is not about you using a particular vocabulary to express your resentment, though it certainly may be indicative of whether you are able to be emotionally detached or not with regards to the particular issue. [3] That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion on the topic of Limeric. Further, the fact that you don't know who to direct your blame at, does not jusfity your wierd hatred towards one particular developer at all, or with regards to this particular topic. That would be unreasonable indeed.
  • Create New...