CaptainMace

I understand that some people don't like the fact it's not optional. But the jokes about the game playing itself as a "josh-style fix" are totally undeserved. They added that feature because people were asking for it. Quit b*tching already. No ability to make room in your inventory or stock things in a limitless one. Limitless inventory. Come on mate, at some point you have to pick one thing to hate, disliking both doesn't make that much sense.

I don't quite understand how you can't do that with area looting ? I mean we're not talking about auto-looting here, are we ?

Sorry mate I was out of coffee this morning. I've nothing against that, I just never felt the need to reroll since ie games let us manage the points pool. Still don't understand it though

I learnt only, like, last year that people like to spend (a lot of) time rolling characters in IE games. I didn't even know there was a backup button (edit, now that i think of it, hasn't it been added by the enhanced editions ?). I don't think that's as... "rewarding" as you say it is. Just grab some dices and you can roll characters all day long mate. We really haven't. Still can't believe people did/do this.

If achievements can be unlocked with that process, they're not really achievements That's why games like CK2 and EU4 unlock achievements only on iron man mode.

lol nice Well no, but not being able to start a new game with the same character absolutely is. This game is the spiritual successor of the 8 legendary infinity RPGs, all of which you can save your character and start a new game with him/her (not sure if you can do this in Torment or not), I can't believe that not including this option is even in question. That's a huge part of the replayability factor gone. Can we get an answer from one of the Devs on this? I can't believe more people don't care about this issue. After we beat the game, our character vanishes in thin air never to be heard from again. That's ludicrous from the standards of this type of game. Answers please. Thanks all :D Part of a game's replayability, sure. But a "huge" part of it, I seriously doubt it. Usually when I reload a dwarven barbarian or an elven sorceress, with 161k.xp, to start in Baldur's Gate 1, I just quickly slaughter Elvenhair before Gorion finger-of-death me abruptly. I really don't see how it'd be any fun, more than a couple of minutes, to load an OP character from start in these games. Though I don't say it's impossible to, I just don't see how it'd be so. It had a purpose in IWD I guess, with Heart of Fury and all that. However that doesn't mean the character vanishes in thin air at the end of the game. As someone wrote it, it's pretty obvious the devs have a sequel in mind in which it'd be possible to import the character from PoE 1, with the same char sheet.

Of course, Obsidian is best equipped to deal with the crpg world today. Who else? Bethesda? Please. BioWare? They brought stupid companions to us all. This will be the age of mutants Obsidian ! More seriously, don't let the hype obstruct your sight friend. Let it flow, and be prepared for everything. Bisous.

Well animations are improvable, definitely. I wouldn't say that they're outdated as you stated in your first post though. They're fine as they are nevertheless.

Well that's tough for poor Baldur's Gate.

In BG unconsciousness wasn't about an endurance gauge either, so that's not really a problem. It could although end before the end of the fight.

Considering the time and effort Sensuki's put into beta-testing, I don't think he'll be able to enjoy the game anyhow anymore. You know too much mate, you can't unsee dem defaults now

But yeah, looks new vegas didn't fit the open-world bs. Bethesda's will though.

Considering low level cap, I guess they keep some in the bag for the expansion and a potential sequel. I'd say they'd like to have the possibility, for a sequel, to make it coherent gameplay-wise by adding the possibility to import the character from the first game with his level and abilities. Though I haven't followed this matter closely, maybe they declared otherwise, or already declared they'd like to do it indeed. Considering trap and lock xp, the problem is that it's either an irrelevant amount of xp (so whether they give some or not doesn't really matter) or it's a relevant one and then, you'd "farm" some traps and locks you could avoid for the sake of gaining more xp. If traps and locks are, all, unavoidable then that'd mean you'd have to be able to disarm/lockpick everything in order to get the "full" reward of the dungeon/area in terms of xp. Either way it's a bit tedious.

Indeed. Throwing a system of money-overcoming-characterlimits in a game like this would greatly advantage an already advantaged completionist. For this one will not only have acquired more power during side quests, he'd also have more money to overcome the fewer limits of his character, making him quite powerful. Though the idea is not bad imo, it'd require a particular game design, probably awfully complicated to balance properly. Or some bald choices.

I like your's Bruce you are very entertaining, self aware, and intelligent. But anyway there should be a ton of people around here soon. Be interesting to see how that changes things. Thanks Valmy, thats a nice thing to say This romance thread is somehow the first metathread I've seen pop in a forum. All this love !

That's true. What I don't like about cooldowns is their ineluctability. The fact you know that using an ability/spell means you won't be able to use it again for a definite duration. Rest-based systems are more flexible in that regard, because you get to decide if you'll be able to use it for the next fight (given you are able to rest after the first one), actually take the time to meet the conditions to rest or just decide to go on without it. An utopic cooldown system would be one that relies on several environmental/specific/action-dependant factors. A world where your ability could or could not be on cooldown after use depending on the most factors possible (the context of the action, where and when it takes place, the status of the user etc) and when it goes on cooldown, make its duration vary on different factors as well. To summarize, a non-rigid, non-automatic cooldown system. But then again that sounds awfully complicated to craft. And either more to balance.

Well considering this topic is although regularly merged with the countless ones that actually talk about the game mechanic/mini-game romance, it's not really fair to pretend it's always just been about romance in its very general definition. But we'll enjoy a ton more of these threads being merged ending in the same discussions we're having right now anyway. We'll have people create these threads talking about the mini-game, people who will react to 'em, and you'll be able to claim that romances are not about that. All over again and again 'til the end of times.

Never said otherwise. What i said however is that you and others reproach somebody to get back to the original matter of the discussion. Aka the absence of romance, as the devs stated, in PoE claiming he distorted the concept of romance to fit his arguments, when really it was the opposite. He stated arguments in the discussion about romance, as a game mechanic, (because that's what is absent from PoE and that's what people are talking about when they start countless romance threads) and people then retorted that romances can be and are something else than game mechanics (which wasn't the point of all these discussions at all). I think we can all agree that romance has been a part of scenarii and story-telling in games since a long time. I think we can say it's also part of movies and books obviously. Yet that's not what people have in mind when they start these countless threads, wether you like it or not. Now, we can talk about romances as well-written part of game stories and characters relationships. But that's obviously not what generates these discussions. Heck there's even a new thread from today or yesterday when a dude sums up what he knows about the game and clearly specifies, under the part called "romance", that he's talking about the mini-game. Now you can retort again and again that romances were and can be something else than the meaningless mini-game, we'll still see more and more people, especially after release, who'll come on this forum to complain about the absence of romance in PoE and they'll obviously be talking about the mini-game. Not the well-written ones that you focalize on.

Man it reminds me of the ending. I rarely facepalm that hard However I liked the Witcher 1, it's not really an rpg though, or at least what I have in mind when I think of rpgs. But I liked it for the monster hunting aspect. The way Geralt had to actually gather information about monsters in order to slain 'em, the trophies for unique ones and such. The Witcher 2 however, didn't leave me any particular impression. I just remember that it's a bit more action. Don't remember the plot.

That'd be damn cool and probably hilarious.

EDIT : I'm a moron who dosn't read full mesages before replying and I deserve the holy fire. :>

Fixed. These "romances" you find good in ps:t, again, are just a matter of good writing. Every other npc interaction would be good and feel natural with good writing. Again, what do we wait to create the hatred thread, the rivalry thread, the family thread to "discuss" these aspects of story-telling ? Why do we still pretend romances are something else than features ? If that's not, what about I find you some good examples of romances in literacy, in cinema ? Since you'll agree that these are the romances you have in mind I guess.

There's no debate, there's originally dudes who ask for the romance mechanic, this dialog mini-game which is about making npcs lose reason and sanity. Then people decided to talk about love in storytelling in general, 'cause the original discussion has ended a long time ago. I don't see how it's a stoopid thing to talk about the original subject of a thread. I think it's actually in every forum cores rules of the history of internet forums all over the web. However nobody ever really reproaches people to denature the concept we're discussing, at the point where it's absolutely pointless to talk about it. But, again, let's pretend the point of this thread was about romance in story-telling in general. Then let's witness that the one and only thing that keeps this discussion alive is that nobody, at all, still talks about romances as game mechanics. The original subject of any romance thread in the galaxy. Where do you see backpedaling in stunt messages. I'd rather say he sticks too much to the original debate which is over since several months. But then again how could I reproach him to stick to the original debate since the new one... isn't one at all.

Yet, a quick relecture of the thread shows that it always follows this order : pro-romance states he wants it, regrets its abstence or both. Anti-romance shares his view about it. Pro-romance now talks about romance in general as part of any kind of story, making his first point irrelevant. Anti-romance goes back to the original point of the thread. I have yet to see somebody create a thread to talk about romances in general, and not the rpg mechanic, and someone replying to narrow the definition of the romance to make his point. That just doesn't exist. Because there's no particular reason to talk about "that" romance. And no particular reason to be against it. If someone tells someone else that apples can heal scorbut, and this someone else says that it actually can't, and then the first dude assures him that fruits can heal scorbut and take the lemon as an example, will you really reproach the second dude to recenter the discussion on apples ? This is a terrible example because it concerns facts and not opinions, but the idea is there I guess.

Damn the funniest part is, I'm not even against romances to begin with, and they don't even annoy me even in the slightest when some of these dialog options shown up on the screen. I just don't like the idea of leaving stunt alone on defining what people have in mind when they talk about rpg romances, ie the game mechanic, ie the dialog options that lead to "thank you for your time my love, I'm done sharing those uncharted places of my heart with you, let's go back on slaying goblins now". Because, even if I admit that's not a correct way to present it, I honestly think, and find it damn obvious, that people don't have this loose definition in mind when they talk about it. If we're to talk about romances as part of a story, some relationship between npcs (i saw something about the lovers from bg1) and such, we wouldn't do it in a thread called "romance thread" otherwise let's create a "hatred thread"; a "indifference thread", a "rivalry thread" etc.