Enoch

It'd be nice to get an opportunity to backfill some of this through early-game dialogue. (E.g., telling Aloth what you've been up to when you first meet him.) Although it would also probably be possible to for the game to extrapolate a lot of it from your Pillars 1 end-state, if you're importing a character. Caed Nua Security/Prestige levels, endgame wealth, the state of the Dyrwood government, how you resolved certain quests, your Act 2 faction alliance, rulership style based on reputations, etc.

For reasons Tig cites, tWitcher isn't really the best measuring stick if you're talking about Pillars going mainstream. Given Obsidz's independence, scale, and American-ness, you'd need a big publisher to really believe in the project to fund the big leap to consoles, AAA production values, marketing, etc. The analogy for an American CRPG franchise moving from its PC-only isometric roots to a cross-platform, open-world, more action-oriented future isn't The Witcher-- it's Fallout.

Nope, it's gone along with the ability to manage your companions abilities in combat Dang. Well, it was fun while it lasted. One less title to throw on the backlog, I guess.

I enjoyed the first trilogy, but have paid 0 attention to this. Does it still allow tactical pausing in combat? That's probably the break-point where ME-type combat becomes un-fun for me, and the larger focus on multiplayer makes me nervous.

But... but... think of all the lost FREEDOM in the revenue streams of insurance companies and care providers! (On your latter point, I think the thinking is not to have replacement federal regulations, but instead to allow folks to buy from the state they choose. Which would trigger a classic "race to the bottom," as one or more "enterprising" states would inevitably strip away all the regulations that insurers hate most to attract them to move their HQ to that state. Sort of like how every credit card issuer is in either DE or SD. Costs would likely be lower, but it would also make effective consumer protection regulation very difficult.)

I assume that this periscope thing is supposed to be doing something besides eternally telling me that it's loading, but damned if I can figure out what. Anybody have this in a format more friendly to an actual desktop browser? (Or, well, a desktop browser with a borderline-paranoid level of defensive add-ons.)

I'm not sure you can make such clear distinctions between "fully committed" and "half-measure." Whether one has "seen something through to the end" or not is likely in the eye of the beholder. That said, the specific examples about Godlike and Ciphers are solid. The game (and associated worldbuilding) could benefit greatly from better explanation of what it means (in the various cultures) to be Godlike. And, as to Ciphers, the lore badly needs ret-conning to dramatically reduce the degree to which Ciphery stuff is useful outside of combat. Keep them balanced for combat, and abilities like divining properties/histories of objects are relatively harmless. But effortless omnidirectional mind-control as exhibited by the Grieving Mother has got to go. If more folks could manage what GM did, you'd need to provide justifications as to why they aren't challenging the gods for dominion over Eora.

And, perhaps most damning of all, that email address was @AOL.com. (Seriously!)

So, how about that Jeff Sessions, huh? By now, the news that yet another figure in Trump's circle has been in touch with the Russian government isn't all that surprising. The surprising thing is just how Sessions got himself in trouble. Here's the exchange from his confirmation hearing: Set aside the fact that he didn't answer the question asked-- that's perfectly normal. (And even appropriate-- a law enforcement official-to-be probably shouldn't be making comments on specific cases like that.) Instead of answering, though, he voluntarily made a declarative statement, under oath, asserting a fact that is very very close to demonstrably untrue. (Sessons acknowledges that he did talk with the Russian ambassador, but argues that he wasn't lying because he did so in his capacity as a Senator, rather than as somebody involved in the Trump campaign.) I'm going to repeat that-- he volunteered an answer to a question that he was not asked, and did so arguably untruthfully. The first rule of any sworn testimony situation is that you do not volunteer information that you were not asked unless you really really want it on the record and are 100% certain that it is 100% true. Even if all the Russia stuff amounts to nothing, in my book, he should resign immediately because any lawyer dumb enough to make that mistake has no business running the U.S. Department of Justice.

He lived off of saying controversial things. It was never an issue up until it was decided overnight that its time for it to become an issue. Most of it was only controversial to the left. It's true he also said a lot of sexual things, but that was OK with Breitbart (I think the founder was a bit of a gay rights champion), and conservatives accepted it because they loved how he bashed the left. He just finally went too far to ignore for people on his own side. As I said, that's how its presented. I personally think he just outlived his usefulness. Even without the comments I have a hard time believing they would let him speak at the same gathering Trump would speak, now that he's president. Its completely inappropriate Well, since when has "completely inappropriate" stopped this President from doing anything? More generally, I think WoD has the pulse on this one. Keep in mind where the votes and money that support far-right cultural policies in the U.S. come from. It's mostly older religious folks. Homosexuality isn't something that this demographic is all that hip to, but it's mainstream enough that they're willing to accept (and be entertained by) a (figurative) bomb-throwing in-your-face gay provocateur who targets things that they hate more. So long as he was taunting feminists, academics, trans folks, aspects of gay culture, etc., he was entertaining and a promising avenue toward more youth interest in conservative causes. Needless to say, though, implied support of sex with children is a huge no-go with this crowd. Even if that wasn't what he really meant, etc., etc., this particular audience isn't too far removed from the days when the common understanding of "sexual deviants" drew no distinction between folks who were simply gay and folks who were into 7-year-olds. Any suggestion of crossing that particular line is especially damning with a good hunk of their support/audience, even if they'd still love to have an advocate like him out there making headlines.

I was OK with the seriousness level of Pillars 1, in general, but the fact that they went with braindead babies in particular was somewhat triggering. So I'll gladly take a bit more silliness if it also means avoiding that particular flavor of tragedy.

Previously, I had been in favor of waiting for the inevitable leak/subpoena of his financial information to establish rock-solid grounds before firing up the impeachment proceedings. But this might just have changed my mind...

Pale elf, obsessed with death. A little on-the-nose, no?

I can't get over the feeling that the Ydwen stretch goal is Obsidian setting the price at which they'd be willing to abandon their principles and succumb to icky fanservice demands. I mean, really. A nerdy, socially awkward, sexy goth-elf? Seriously?

I have no doubt that WoD believes what he/she says, but note the url of the related link. When one's most trusted news sources are composed primarily of "alternative facts," some, shall we say, eccentricities are to be expected. That said, "corporate interests" is a lazy generalization that doesn't really say much at all about a politician's positions. There are lots of corporate entities with lots of varied political stances. Unless you're talking specifically about the laws regarding formation and operation of a corporation (which, for the most part, are state-level, not federal), there aren't many policy proposals that you couldn't find some corporations for and some against.

I'm really hoping that they ret-con that kind of thing out. If other (less wacky) Ciphers had GM's facility with effortless omnidirectional mind-control, it's hard to imagine what, outside of direct divine intervention, would stop such individuals from ruling the world in short order. It threatens to break the verisimilitude of the setting.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of false equivalence that has put a guy like Trump the White House. All Presidents, like all humans, have some negative characteristics. That doesn't mean that some negative characteristics aren't far far more "poisonous" than others to an individual's prospects for being an effective public servant. "That Obama guy reads his speeches too much. Let's elect a guy who doesn't like reading anything longer than the kid's menu at Denny's! No way that can go wrong, right?"

Pillars 1 basically had two tiers of companions already: the MCA Duo, and Everybody Else. At least this setup is warning the players of what they're getting into.

This would sound like an interesting companion, follow his quest, find out where's he from, what language is that, do some investigating etc, and that ominous "that's what everyone assumes", but as a sidekick without a quest or development? It's like a hired adventurer speaking gibberish. I'll just stick with the companions for story and create adventurers when min-maxing. More importantly, what is "Storm Folk"? Have we seen that sub-race before?

You mean the same congress that tries to disprove global warming by bringing a snowball to the floor? Those people that are sponsored by various oil, gas and drilling companies? Yeah, that is going to end well for you. Democracy - know it, love it. To be fair, Congress didn't used to be this dumb. They've greatly limited their ability to perform oversight by cutting their own budgets, as some folks looking to "shrink the size of government" decided to start with what was most in their control. Unfortunately, that meant fewer Committee staffers (and such) who have the requisite knowledge and experience to provide meaningful oversight over very technical executive-branch entities like EPA. (There even used to be a legislative branch "Office of Science and Technology" to help Congress understand stuff. It was cut.) All that does is empower the executive branch and lobbyists (who can push agendas on legislators lacking access to unbiased expert opinions), as well as lead to Congress intervening in dumb ways rather than smart ones. By oversight I mean legislative action, for example there's a proposal that any regulation that costs over a certain amount has to be approved by Congress. Which is a classic dumb "solution" to a complicated issue. Or, rather, a long series of complicated issues. If a knowledgeable Congress is going to engage with the details of technical matters involved in each particular proposed Rule and author legislation to address what they see as the issues needing attention, great. If an uninformed Congress is simply going to be the vehicle by which lobbyists stop Rules authored by regulatory agencies, I don't really see how that leads to better policymaking. (Also, agencies will quickly learn to game the system to avoid the "cost" caps.)

You mean the same congress that tries to disprove global warming by bringing a snowball to the floor? Those people that are sponsored by various oil, gas and drilling companies? Yeah, that is going to end well for you. Democracy - know it, love it. To be fair, Congress didn't used to be this dumb. They've greatly limited their ability to perform oversight by cutting their own budgets, as some folks looking to "shrink the size of government" decided to start with what was most in their control. Unfortunately, that meant fewer Committee staffers (and such) who have the requisite knowledge and experience to provide meaningful oversight over very technical executive-branch entities like EPA. (There even used to be a legislative branch "Office of Science and Technology" to help Congress understand stuff. It was cut.) All that does is empower the executive branch and lobbyists (who can push agendas on legislators lacking access to unbiased expert opinions), as well as lead to Congress intervening in dumb ways rather than smart ones.

I refer you all to the best "Let's Play" narrative on the web: CrookedB on Wizardry IV Virtually everything in that game was an asinine puzzle.

Having been to Wegmans' locations in suburban MD & NJ, I don't think point (B) is universal. Everybody's gotta eat.

A priest/fighter multiclass wouldn't necessarily make paladins redundant so long as the latter continue to have abilities and features that are both uniquely theirs and competitive with alternatives such as priest spells. It also stands to reason that any single or multiclass builds that fill a similar role, however imperfectly, would necessarily be doing so at the expense of other options, in which case I don't really see the harm as long as they don't do the paladin's job better. Recall also that the model for the Pillars paladin was less the fighter-with-some-cleric stuff of AD&D & 3E, and more the Warlord of D&D 4E.