dorkboy

Is this something that might be considered for the expansion? (Not sure how much wiggle room OE have with the gameplay here.) Arrows/ammunition, that is - not elf height.

In my oppinion that whole discussion is rather absurd, we talk about bows that have a max range of 10 meters and need like 20 arrows to kill someone from point blank range. No, we're not talking about that. Nor is this a discussion of the relative merits of the English Longbows at Agincourt, or what exact DT value they should "realistically" have ingame. We're talking about bows that do not require arrows. That's not numbers exaggerated one way or that other for the sake of gameplay/balance. That's abstraction, when torches aren't. Furthermore, I think it's a missed opportunity for some potentially interesting ranged weapon/class differentiation and gameplay. (Yes, in IE games it was pretty much impossible to run out of arrows. I know.) But please, go on thinking any discussion on how less developed* aspects of gameplay might be expanded upon is absurd. (*or at least seemingly so, due to lack of consistency.) Let's instead have a twelve billion page discussion about the quality of the character models, and the size of doorways. Or maybe it's time for another poll about selection circles?

People are allowed to cherry-pick the aspects they find the least believable. In fact, that's generally a good place to start. I wouldn't mind line of fire being an issue with ranged weapons/spells, but that would probably work better in a system where positioning and firing is more controllable (ie. TB), and I do find dual-wielding axes to be somewhat .. hm.. when compared to dual-wielding, say, a sword and a sword-breaker. Dual-wielding is a case of exaggeration, though, not a case of abstraction. Should arrows/ammo be a [per encounter?] resource, thus making it internally consistent with camping supplies, torches, spells etc.? I think so. Making mundane arrows magical by having an infinite supply, and magical arrows mundane by having a finite supply makes little "realistic" sense to me. If anything it should be the other way around. But there is also the fun/balance aspect, ofc. It's not as if bows requiring arrows is impossible due to technical limitations of the medium. I'd rather they refined the way it worked in the IE games by applying current mechanics such as per encounter, weapon/quiver sets, class talents, etc. There should be plenty of stuff to pick from to make it mechanically interesting and [sufficiently] believable...

@Zombra I disagree that the compromise between finite weight and/or space limitations and a largish inventory is a bad one. In fact, I think it may in many cases be the best of both worlds. It adds both the involvedness of a limited inventory, but without necessarily making it a concern for each and every item picked up - thus making looting, as opposed to just equipping to 1 out of 3 slots, viable. It also, due to not being an infinite grid/list, limits how much time you have to spend digging through pockets to locate stuff. Don't get me wrong, though, I don't think the IE inventories would have suffered if gems, jewelry, arrows etc. had automatically stacked, rather than requiring a lot of shuffle-tetris. Infinite bags of holding, gem bags/scroll cases and generally bags within bags (or pockets within Hong Kong Police vests within backpacks within sub-backpacks, for that matter) is where it gets convoluted, IMO, as it adds a layer of hierarchy/procedure to the logistics of sorting. If the decision on what to pick up and what to leave behind is a simple one, then I don't think adding a pocket labyrinth to it makes that aspect more complex - just more fidgety (and, yes, indeed rewarding boring behaviour). Lastly, it adds believability/verisimilitude (does not strictly equal realism, and never will) and a change of pace/post battle loot reviewing process (whereas being able to simply vacuum the place of everything that's not nailed to the floor makes looting less involving, IMO, because you just click "Take all" without any thought to what you're actually taking). You will agree with all of this! *jedi hand wave*

Seems like a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Per encounter at least pretends to deal with a semi-believable world. Getting rid of annoyances simply doesn't, in and of itself, add up to improved gameplay. But, hey, some people like it bland..

Crutch or no crutch, books do not have mechanics beyond just turning the page. Games do. That makes it a different pudding altogether. Well-written dialogue is probably hard enough already, then add to that choice/consequence and meaningful gameplay/agency. It seems to me that those things are tricky enough in and of themselves, and adding something as inherently tricky as romance on top of that - something's gotta give; Either poorly written dialogue, flat gameplay, or "Romance" that simply doesn't feel very romantic at all. Some people love that, of course, just like some people love soap operas.

It's poetry.. the poetry of War.

Fascinating.

Hm, I think the "bread-and-butter upgrades" are the least interesting. Generally speaking, that is..

Good question, to it's sort of like going off to college, but being able to bring your high school buddies with you. But I don't think people actually expect any of this stuff to come over verbatim from BG to PoE. Mostly I think people are waxing nostalgic and having a bit of fun. That has been where I've been coming from, at least. There's BG the original editions and BG the EE now. PoE needs a bit more than BG&BG2 offered to be a real success and I'm not talking here about fancier graphics. What are you talking about then?

They should do negative achievements instead - notifying all your friends every time your party gets wiped!

Feargus Chan. Or maybe Feargws Chân, for a little extra glanfathan flair and zestyness..

Yeah, that's the only aesthetics issue, as far as I'm concerned. The conversation UI has one palette/look*, the vendor/inventory UI another and the character creation/level up screen yet another. (*I mean buttons/text and UI elements like that. )

Really dislike healing when levelling up, feels so phoney for some reason. However, if level up requires resting anyway.. more birds per stone.

In both of the recent streams I've watched the question that bugged me was: Why can't he level up more than once while he's already in the level up screen. Can't say I noticed any issue with it other than that (and documentation/transparency will no doubt be addressed at some point).

Sorry, missed out on the KS so this is all unknown to me - the "fundraiser" for an expansion (which may or may not include MP) would be pre-orders/addons to existing pledges, and pre-ordering the expansion is no longer possible after the 22nd .. August?

And then the NPCs would be like: "Looks like someone's been a haughty boy!" Honestly though, I think head size should be linked to character level. That strikes me as a more level-headed approach.

In the second video I think the ogre is killed by Sassy, even though Sassy does 0.0 damage to it...?

Fortunately, none of those characters will be making a return in T:ToN. And I hope none of the CNPCs from PoE will return in a "hypothetical" PoE 2. The way BG2 brought back "Your favourite characters from BG1, right? Right? You liked these characters in BG1, didn't you?" was a cheese unto itself. Oh hey, I found a duck on the ground..

Well, flirting with Annah did little but somewhat flatten her character into a kinda trite and Young Adult-esque character, IMO, rather than a more hardcore, plane-touched misfit. I can see how people find it makes characters more relatable, as in 'more ordinary', but the cool thing about fantasy and other "out there" genres is they can take a concept like souls, death/afterlife, good/evil or chaos/law at face value and just run with it - creating some potentially extraordinary and uniquely interesting characters and situations. Maybe CNPCs are just one-trick ponies in terms of how they are perceived?

After watching the 2nd video, I think the only thing that's really missing in terms of animation is some character/enemy reaction to being hit. And a resting screen/scene/transition, for immershun's sake.

I agree that PS:T had great "follow-through" on the attack animations.

What's that weird seam between the beetle area and the statue feet/scripted interaction area? Clearer feedback on what is going on, especially with regards to taking damage, would be good. I reckon watching a lossy/slightly laggy stream with commentary on top of it isn't helping, but I nevertheless think taking and dealing damage should be at the top of the feedback hierarchy. (Yes, this will obviously be improved through beta testing..) Occasionally semi-invisible character models. Hard to make out, and would probably end up being annoying in the long run. A picture or some other sort of dramatic illustration on the "party has died" screen. Probably has been answered twelve illion times already, but can you bind specific abilities/spells/weapon sets to hotkeys (unique to each character)? And it looks awesome.

Are character models supposed to convey personality? Or are they supposed to be mere coat-hangers with [facial] hair? This is not a question of graphical fidelity, mind you..

I'm not with you, are you saying you don't want to Romance party members because you are concerned the Romance implementation would be cheesy? Ah, no. That would be like asking me if I am concerned I won't like boiled cod the next time someone offers it to me. 'Concern' would simply be an entirely wrong word for it. The point was with regards to CNPCs versus NPCs. They function differently, and can generally be held to different standards. I think fewer people would loathe Jar Jar Binks if he only appeared in a single scene, moreso if that scene was of little relevance. ( -> Random NPC) Conversely, zooming in on a character's 3D modelled face during conversation brings out the uncanniness of the articulation, in much the same way that romanceable CNPCs bring out the full extent of CRPG romance cheesiness. It removes believable depth from the character, IMO. (And, yes, this is where we completely and utterly disagree )