Katarack21

Disagreement is totally legit. I'm just glad we're both capable of being reasonable about our opinions. On a side note, audio books are awesome.

I'm not sure. It depends on how they built the modes currently in the game. They already did the work creating them, so it's possible that with all the tools already in place and all the previous design knowledge gained implementing another mode could be relatively easy. As I said, I'm honestly not sure. I don't possess the knowledge to make a sound judgement on the cost. I'm just saying, if it is feasible and reasonable, it sounds like a good idea.

But that's the *whole point of the mode* is to have negative affects on gameplay. Literally, the whole idea of a "story mode" is to "negatively effect gameplay" in the sense of making one of the major components of gameplay (combat) effectively meaningless so that the player who chooses this mode can focus entirely on character interactions, non-combat social skills, etc. without worrying about encounters and combat. For this type of player--effectively a dedicated, hardcore *role*player--those things *are* the gameplay. They care less about how to defeat this group of bears than how many points they have to have in Lore to pull that little nugget of extra info out of the bartender. These are the guys that run three concurrent saves of different classes and backgrounds just to find out what the differences are for each in every conversation, and who save skim....so they can see the other branches. Having an extremely easy mode for this, without having any impact whatsoever on the "normal" modes for the rest of us, makes sense to me.

I don't mean Blood Bowl, specifically. I was just making an example. I had heard the name, but didn't even know what it was until you brought it up in direct reference, here. It's a good example, I suppose, of how you can make some different games without taking all your games in the same direction in one giant wave. Of course, it seems like it was made up a while back, as a tabletop game, then adapted into a video game. I'm talking more about new/original IP's and such. Just, the ideas these business folk get behind (or allow their creative folks to come up with) in today's big game companies. I realize that it's a business, but so is a restaurant. You can just cover everything in chocolate/cheese, respectively, and you'll probably get a lot of business. But that doesn't get you the position as one of the best restaurants. Hard work, effort, and passion about your food is what does that. The main problem with businesses today is that the formula has become far too much "How can we get money from people?" and not enough "How can we earn people's business?". Better to gain a customer who LIKES to give you their money, than one who simply feels there's not an alternative. I dunno... it's hard to describe in a couple of simple statements. It's not that you can't take into consideration what a lot of people would like. It's just that your priority shouldn't be "maximize the people who would show some interest in this," whilst "make this game idea as great as it can be" gets drowned out. It's the difference between people who want to make good games because they love games, and who are as interested in the rewards of respect and accolades from their peers and admiration in their industry as they are in the material rewards, and companies who make "good" games only because "good" games sell better and will make them a higher profit. It's the difference between Stephen Spielberg and Michael Bay.

Honestly, to get more potential exposure to ideas. I belive they are good, so personally don't mind being taken for rude. To enlarge potential target. Not only to gamers. Let's try to think outside box: who beside RPG-gamers could be interested in this kind of game? For me answer are: 1. Artists - cause in overall PoE is tasteful and coherent (medieval setting didn't biting with transparent, clean HUD), and it may correspond well with art community. 2. Teenagers - they love touch the stuff don't designed for them. Despite alcohol and drugs, it may have some good outcome too. Tell them, its not game for them, it too hard, or too mature, too complicated. Just don't tell it directly. 3. Fantasy readers - they also could be considered as potential target, when it comes to fantasy the border between fans of comics, books or games became really thin and easy to cross. Encouraging them by possible very easy gameplay wouldn't hurt anyone. I think this is a good point. Having a mode where the combat is super easy and virtually meaningless, but has no effect whatsoever on the other modes of gameplay, would encourage a group of people who wouldn't otherwise play without having any effect whatsoever on the tactical, strategic combat element in the "normal" modes. I don't see a problem with this. I probably wouldn't play it, not until I've beaten the game in the normal mode at least, but I can't see any reason to complain about the option being available to others.

After I beat BGII a few times, I cheated hard and extensively with the console, creating a party so massively overpowered that I was never challenged by any enemies and also using the instant-kill key command. I did this just so I could wander around at my leisure, fully exploring every environment and interacting with every character without any concerns for my ability to continue the game. After beating BGII a few times, why would you need to do that in order to have no concerns about your ability to continue the game? It's the difference between "This fight is well-known to me and fairly easy; challenge is minimal" and "Ha! *hits two buttons to kill these things and continues avidly exploring".

After I beat BGII a few times, I cheated hard and extensively with the console, creating a party so massively overpowered that I was never challenged by any enemies and also using the instant-kill key command. I did this just so I could wander around at my leisure, fully exploring every environment and interacting with every character without any concerns for my ability to continue the game.

I reloaded, like, a dozen times when exploiting the invisible chest.

I get that. I'm wondering what legitimate reason actually fueled their decision-making process. The answer is pretty much "none." Or rather, they follow a very skewed version of reasoning when they make such decisions. 'Cause, the idea seems to be "if we don't follow this model, we don't make lots of money." Which isn't true. *shrug*. I don't get how someone can be like "Oh, people LOVE my cakes! Better just make like 3. I don't wanna take the time to make 50 cakes, and make 50-times the profit. I'll just try to make those 3 cakes appeal to people who are allergic to eggs, milk, and sugar." It's much more complicated then that. You have to compute how much 50 cakes will cost in various ingredients, how many you'll sell, how many you'll sell vs the amount of time put into production, compare that with the same experience in 3 cakes, etc. It's a cost/benefits analysis that takes hundreds of factors into account. It's the same reason Hollywood makes the same blockbusters, and the same reason everything published by Tor in 1992 was essentially the same fantasy novel, etc. Basically, if you can have 1 product that appeals to 100 people, you will make more money than if you have 100 products that appeal to 1 person because of the money that be saved by simple, efficient mass production of one item versus the specialized production neccessary for 100 unique items. The problem is that over diversification of appeal eventually leads to everything being virtually the same, which then breeds a loss of interest in the population over time. At this point, the major producers are convinced that the games, movies, etc. have to be huge spectacles to even get our attention, with special effects and incredibly expensive marketing campaigns and other such. This massively inflates the cost of production, thus throwing the entire calculation off. Once this self-reinforcing cycle of mass appeal/cost inflation get's going, a small producer making an alternative, viably unique product for a comparatively small opening investment can move in to the market that's being ignored and make a killing overnight. That's what Obsidian is hoping to do.

Yes. I often play with headphones and pause to do things like roll a cigarette, make tea, etc.--during which activities I often take off the headphones. So at those times the sound doesn't help; the movement is subtle enough to miss at a quick glance, especially if you have bad eye sight. But "GAME PAUSED" draws your eye. Making games for the lowest common denominator and catering to every whim? Yes please! I say to make the "game paused" message in bright neon lights that pulses to the tune of Pitbull's latest hit. What? BG had just some gears that stopped moving when the game was paused? Frack that! What did those bozos knew about proper game design back in the late nighties? Lowest common denominator? I use headphones and have bad eyesight. I am hardly the exception, let alone the worst idiot who might play this game. Regardless, this is a game which relies heavily on pause as part of the gameplay; letting people know when the game is paused in an obvious but non-intrusive fashion is a good idea. The IE gear set-up was a good way of doing that, but PoE doesn't have any such thing built in. Beyond all of that, when we're talking UI you *SHOULD* be building for lowest common denominator, though of course you want to stay within your design, flavor, specific requirements of your software, etc. (thus your ridiculous flashing neon...thing...is revealed for the clearly exaggerated straw-man it is). This is simple and basic programming principle; you don't want a potential customer not playing your game because of a simple UI problem. The problem comes when major companies apply this principle to things beyond UI; stuff like story, character, gameplay mechanics, etc or when it get's exaggerated to such an extent that UI is so simple that it's not capable of carrying out the basic functions of the software. Some stuff should most certainly NOT be designed in this manner. However, the UI should *ALWAYS* be as simple, clear, and efficient as possible; it should be designed to contain all the information deemed necessary in a manner that is as clear and easily understood as possible to the largest number of potential players as possible. *GAME PAUSED* may not be the most elegant solution to the problem, but it's certainly better than an easily-missed two words of text in a window that might not even be open, or a total lack of feedback on one of the most basic and vital functions that the entire game is based around.

I can agree with much of what you're saying. Here's a few questions for you. Somebody pointed out earlier that BG1 appears to have the encounters balanced for fully healed, all-magic-available parties. I think this is true, but in this hypothetical situation assume that it is. All else being completely identical, if this one thing was true would it change how you feel about rest spamming? Would it change your thought of it from an exploit to legit game play? I ask because, the first time I played through BG1, not resting constantly never occurred to me. Never entered my mind. From the moment resting became an option, I was "abusing" the rest function. I never thought about "breaking the system" or analyzing anything; it just seemed like how you should be playing this game. I feel that kind of thing is probably more common than people think; the people who actively seek out how to break the system are the rarity. Most people just play within the rules of the mechanics, but however they feel is natural and fun.

Logic is subjective; it depends on the knowledge of the individual to arrive at probable conclusions. Aether and the humour theory of disease were both perfectly logical conclusions based on the knowledge at the time; both were wildly incorrect. There is no "most logical" way to play; there is only the specific play style that is most natural and fun for you.

Well you are a silver supporter, you are not the one we are talking about. I would love to hear from more people that supported the game at lowest levels about their motivations for that amount. I'm on a fixed income from disability. I had about $60 that was more-or-less disposable that month. I wanted to support the game, but specifically I wanted to get a copy of the game out of supporting the game. I did so, and the add-on for expansion, and was extremely happy. I put in an extra $5 just because I really wanted them to make the game. I think I spent, in total, $55 bucks and got a hamburger with that last five.

That's a better way of doing it. I dislike fetch quests; I generally find them annoying. They were the whole reason I couldn't get into NWN, actually. BG1 and 2 were much better about that, but they had their share.

For some reason, my copy keeps telling me F with the melee attacks and W with the ranged attacks for fart magic, but both require I hit the W key to do it. The F key has no response at all.

Regardless on what price game will be sold when it is finished and distributed in stores, the main advantage that KS backers get from being backer is to get game made in first place, as otherwise it wouldn't have been made. Of course cheaper price and earlier access could have given additional enticement to back for somebodies, but I would say for most of the backers those play quite small if any part in their decision to become backers. And I am quite sure that people will pay much less, for example, than me (about $400) when game finally comes out. This is what people that gave more than minimum think. The 95% of backers want a cheaper game first (the 95% are those that gave as little as possible to get the game). On average people gave $54 for the game, which of course comes from simple math where you divide end sum with number of backers, which don't tell how the sum is actually divided between backers, but it gives you number that tells you how much game would have cost for you if all the backers had paid same amount for it. Of course I can't say why people backed game, but I would say it is bit unrealistic to expect to get it cheaper than anybody can ever get the game if you take part to fundraiser to make it possible to make the game in first place. Average means nothing in this case and has nothing to do with my statement. My 95% is not an accurate number, but I am sure I would be far from it if I went to count it.The point still stands that most people wanted to get a game they would like to play cheap. EDIT: OK did some math (this only includes KS backers). 62.07% people backed the game at base levels that give you a digital copy of the game. 11.35% people backed the game at the 35$ level that also gives you a manuals and soundtracks. This is a cheaper version of digital Deluxe versions of games on Steam. 7.74% people backed it at 50$ level which is an expanded digital Deluxe level (and probably costs the same as digital deluxe will). Lot of people also opted to take add-ons, meaning that they gave more money than their tier indicates.) But any way I would say it is bit silly to complain that people that didn't back the game should not get game as cheap as most low level backers (if Paradox would had decided to do so) when those backers got game as cheap as they got only because other people were willing to invest more money in the game (people in $20-$50 tiers only put about $1.6 million towards game if we don't take account add-ons, which is less than half of the money pledged towards the game). You are incorrect, good sir. Those people paid for the game; what I mean is, if ONLY those people had donated, the game would still have been made and they still would have donated only $25. Obsidian only asked for 1,000,000 originally. It wouldn't have been as large, as complex, or probably as good. But to say they only got the game at that price because other people invested more money is incorrect. They would have gotten the game at that price regardless.

Yes. I often play with headphones and pause to do things like roll a cigarette, make tea, etc.--during which activities I often take off the headphones. So at those times the sound doesn't help; the movement is subtle enough to miss at a quick glance, especially if you have bad eye sight. But "GAME PAUSED" draws your eye.

That's not an argument in case there is no item damaging mechanic in the game. Your armor would eventually get damaged too in the real world, but the game does not contain this mechanic. So either way all of the equipment (including yours) would have to be subjected to damage, or none. The latter is the case for this game. Thank god that never made it in the game. I dont like that in any game elder scrolls or fallout. A better argument is that unless the enemy is exactly your size and shape, the armor isn't going to fit or provide much protection. Have a very nice day. -fgalkin If we're going for "realism" that's not entirely true. Male, breastplates, full plate. etc. were made in a standard manner and standard size. "Fitted" suits of armor, made for a particular persons size and shape, were more expensive and thus more rare. Outsize, custom suits of armor--like the full plate Tyrion Lannister has at Casterly Rock in ASoIAF--also existed, but were almost exclusively for kings and extremely wealthy nobility. A hedge knight would have a generic standard suit of plate, and a foot soldier would have a generic standard suit of mail, bandits and such usually wore leather unless they stolen some armor (from blacksmiths, caravans, whatever).

Considering the "Game Paused" words on screen, I really don't think there's any need for the same information in the log.

There is nothing wrong with kiting in a single-player game. You play however the heck you feel like, and ignore everybody who tries to tell you how you "should" play. Personally, I never kited in an IE game. Never felt the need to. Then again, I didn't play through IWD 2.

All I need to know is: will it run on my crappy old computer from 2007, with a video card from 2010 in it?

Having the model there is important for people who care about hair, color-schemes, etc. for role-playing purposes. Helps to visually see the changes your making.

Yeah, I've been wondering about that. 6 months ago, one of the top people at Obsidian (either Feargus or Josh, I can't remember which) flat out said that the game will come out in winter of 2014 because 'that's when the money runs out' (their words). Now they're saying 2015. Well? Did the money suddenly not run out? Or are they paying for it out of their own pockets? And then, suddenly pre-orders went on sale...

That's not an argument in case there is no item damaging mechanic in the game. Your armor would eventually get damaged too in the real world, but the game does not contain this mechanic. So either way all of the equipment (including yours) would have to be subjected to damage, or none. The latter is the case for this game. Thank god that never made it in the game. I dont like that in any game elder scrolls or fallout. I agree. I'm also glad that the permanent character death got made optional. Both of those would make me very frustrated, very quickly.

The price seems perfectly reasonable to me. This is a big, complex game. What it lacks in graphical whizbang was instead spent on length, complexity, and gameplay design. Right now DA:I will run you fifty bucks in the store. Do you honestly think less time, effort, or skill went into PoE? This isn't an indie game by an unknown company. This is a major release by Obsidian. FO:NV sold 5,000,000 copies. KOTOR 2 sold 475,000 within the first month. Some of that was because sequels based on popular licensed properties, but the developer is well-known in the gaming community, and recognized outside of it. The way the development was funded doesn't change the fact that Obsidian needs to generate enough profit to both keep paying the normal business costs (rent, employees, etc.) but also pay for the future development of other projects (including future projects based on this new IP). They don't want to KS all the time; they want to be a self-sustaining, profit-generating game development studio that produces quality games of their own devising without being held to publishers or large conglomerates whims. Our investment allowed them to remain solvent while they focused on the production of a game that no publishers would let them make. In return, they promised us a free copy of this product once it was made, along with various other non-monetary rewards for our investment. The goal is to sell enough copies, to make enough profit, so that they can keep making games and running the company on their own terms.