Abel

Thanks. It's a way of seeing things that i didn't think about. So, agree with the OP too.

Mayama has some good points here i guess, and Hassat too. The IE games had probably their own good reasons for doing some stuff, and the "It was like that in BGX" reason seems a bit out of topic. Still, it's a matter of details, and i agree that the button placing matter seems pretty hard to solve.

Well, in my opinion, the status after you reached 0 HP is a problem. I would give this status for a downed, and just permanent death when you reach 0 HP. You kill your opponents, right? And your characters are just "tired", "downed" "injured", or "bored" or "whatever"? Irrealistic imo. And you should not be able to rest more than once/16H (unless you have some violent sleeping drug oO), or be healed just by resting (yeah, i got impaled 3 times yesterday, but after a good night resting, i'm ok! oO). The old BG2 system needing a temple was ok. Wel, actually i'm not currently playing the beta, but i saw plenty of videos about it, and i was surprised. Soo, if i misunderstood something... Feel free to flame me

True. But i think "Legends of Eisenwald" implemented this very well. Rumors in taverns are often totally unbelievable. But some are true, and it's not always the ones we thought. A pity that this game has such a lack of visibility. But agree, such a feature adds some unvaluable flavor.

I definitely like it. This version, the previous and the whole concept. I would be very curious to see the exact same screenshot with the defautl minimalistic UI, just to compare the general feeling I see your point Mayama. It's true that today we can do things we couldn't 20 or 30 years ago. Nobody want to see a 2 colors game anymore (i assume, sorry if i'm wrong :D). It could be charming and all, but the 1984's "boulderdash" style has lived. I guess that claiming that someone who is yearning for a boulderdash style game nowadays is a nostalgic could be ok. And i think that if you can't see the appeal of this kind of old-school solid UI, then, your use of "nostalgic" is understandable. Now, the problem we have with the word "nostalgic" here, is that generally, it's linked to found memories that have to be revived (a dictionary won't help you all the time). It was my point in previous post. I didn't really liked solid UIs back in the day for the same reasons as you. And that's why i am not a nostalgic. If i'm nostalgic of something, it's about PC UIs, and not console ported PC UIs... The minimalistic one of PoE is very PC friendly, so, this is not why i like this solid UI either. So why? What i want to tell you is "even if i have seen yesterday a RPG solid UI for the first time, i'm pretty sure i would have reacted the same way". It's not about past, not about time, not about any other game or about past GPU limitations. It's about taste (like you said), and about aesthetics. It's not because something has been done in the past that you must again and again take it as a universal reference years later. Some things can just exist on their own. Another detail. It seems you take as verified for sure that full 3D would have been equally or maybe even more beautiful than prerendered 2D for PoE (sorry if i misunderstood). I can't agree. First, we have some kind of dynamic lighting, even with 2D stuff here (it's kind of magic, and i worship the guy who have done THIS!>>> ). And second, the paintover is pretty awesome here. 3D can't allow this. Once more, it's a matter of taste, and you're free to prefer full 3D like other isometrics games used. I guess that what make some people nervous here is that you claimed that everybody can have his own tastes, but don't seem to have a clue about what other people feel, and don't seem to understand when explained. Well it's not a crticism, since most people are like this, and, maybe, i am the same too. Promise, i really try to be more open minded .

You're totally right and i never meant to say that nostalgia was a bad thing . It's just that people who "presume" to argue is a problem to me. "Nostalgia" seems to be the easiest argument nowadays. "Hey mate, you're a nostalgic, so shut up, you opinion has to be biased", or "Dunno what to oppose him, so let's accuse him to be a nostlagic freak". Just my impression? I saw this a whole lot of times on some french forum. Some people doesn't seem to accept that there could be some good reasons to like some old school things besides only nostalgia. I don't have to like everything just because it's trendy. I'm fed up with trends governing tastes. So, i just like some old things just because i feel they're cool. I wanted to point this. I must say that i don't know if Mayama is like this, i don't accuse him.

This has nothing to do with beeing a newcomer. I bought almost every IE game (exept IWD 2) at launch and I hated the UI from the very first moment I saw it. Developers back than usualy made UI's like that so they dont have to render the whole screen with ingame graphics. For me UI's ruin the immersion, I want to see the actual game not a menu. The old IE UI's covered at last one third of the whole screen. You couldnt actually see what was around you at 640x480 or 800x600 pixels, you had zero overview and it forced you to constantly pan around to actually see what was going on. I personaly think that most people that prefer big solid UI's just want them for nostalgica sake. I feel way more comfortable with UI's that do not create the feeling of seeing the actual game through a second window (the screen is the first one). The best UI's for me are those that are intregrated into the actual game and do not district from it. It all comes down to personal opinion. Yeah Stun, feel and atmosphere, that's it. I agree that back in the day, an invasive UI with a max screen size at 640X480 was a pain in the ass because, yeah, you couldn't see much on the game screen with a camera to close. But now, we are in 2015. And Grotesque have proved that this is a problem no more, unless you want to play PoE with a zoom level that makes you feel you're actually playing in 640X480. I will agree with one of your points Mayama. It's a matter of tastes, and i can understand yours. And for what i've read here and there, i confirm that it is MOSTLY a matter for newcomers. But hey, there are exceptions, there is no need to explain me this, because it's obvious to me. It's just that many people who are really used to minimalistic UIs feel confortable with them, and you explained why quite well. I've no problem with that. That's why i said it would be better for the game sales to ship PoE with this kind of minimalistic, trendy UI (kind of publishers way to think i guess ). But to me, and to others, this kind of solid UI bring some sort of atmosphere and immersive feeling that enlighten the whole game screen. I really think the whole game screen is way more beautiful with Grotesque's solid UI. Can't explain it better, it was shocking when i saw it. Things i felt quite plain were suddenly beautiful and charming. So, NO, it's not about nostalgia, because i suffered the same problems than you with solid UIs back in the day. I've never asked for a solid UI before. But now, i understand the positive things such a solid UI can bring to the game, according to my aesthetic tastes. I may have changed my opinion. I'm not a nostalgic fanatic, so, please, stop saying that whoever is not agree with you is just a nostalgic freak when you don't know anything. Even if you said "most people", you answered me, and i can't help but feel that to you, i was part of this "most people" thing. That's all.

To me, the purpose of such old school UIs is all about planting an ambiance. Am i the only one who feels like the whole game screen is way more beautiful with this old style UI? To me, it's stunning, obvious. That's true that it's not the most functional type, but i feel like theses details won't really matter, and i would definitely use this UI if available as a mod. On the other hand, i think that this kind of UI may be ok only with people who played and loved these old IE games. I know that OE said they wanted to capture these old IE games' vibe, but the game needs to be sold well enough and i can't help but think that if the game is to be released with this kind of old school UI, many newcomers who could have been interested in it would just flee, without even trying it (just reading some french forums on some video games websites make me think it's true). To me, the point is to show that RPG is not all about expensive 3D with nothing else. Too much old school vibe could kill the old school type, and for a public release, it may be better to use a modern and minimalistic UI like PoE's one. Even if it's true that this kind of UI may seem just plain and ambiant killing. Poor world Still, about the mock ups. I'm agree with Zack. The left bar should be narrowed with just one button for formations and all put in one column. I don't feel like the asymmetry between the 2 side bars is a problem. And about the 9 spell slots. The advantage of the PoE's UI is that it's adaptable. What if an add-on or a mod add some spells? The UI should at least have scrolling possibilities. The Poe's one seems more "mod ready". Still, once more, fantastic job here Grotesque.

I've definitely not read all the topic (it takes too much courage for a french guy like me). But, i would say that to me, the one good point of romance is that they help you being attached to some NPCs in your party. I'm not a promancer (strange word indeed :D), and i'm not even sure to love love... But still... I'm sure i wouldn't have liked Aerie or Viconia this much if it wasn't for them being romanceable. Your learnt about them, you saw deepful interactions that you would never have seen without the romances, and somehow, this party NPCs became even more special to my character, and, to some extend, to me. And the same goes with PS:T NPCs like Annah (i had a blast with it, and i remember i was full to the brim with sorrow at the end. Emotional me :D, but best NPC ever.) There is nothing about fanatism or so here. It's probably to late to implement, but i would have liked some romances too. Nevertheless, this one lack is not enough to make me regret having backed it. Maybe in a PoE 2 .

I can't imagine that dev staff really read all the comments. It's a very long list of comments here. And i've not read all. I'm opened to the idea of playing rogues or rangers in a way i never saw them. Rogues as dommage dealing class? Well, sounds strange for a BG fan, but why not? It may be interesting, new, intriguing. Ranger=Archer? Why not? But i think even if the ranger is at his best with a bow, he should have some skills in melee weapons as an alternative way to fight. A less efficient, but more flexible one for the hard times when another fighter is hugely needed on the front line. I'm agree with the one who said that one interest of the old D&D rules was that all classes had not to be great in combat. But, it takes some time to understand how this kind of character is interesting to put in a party. It took a while before i learnt to love priests and rogues in Baldur's Gate, as for charisma oriented wizards as a main character. Multi classing allowed some kind of flexibility in BG, and i think PoE's goal is to extend this flexibility. And i'm all for that. It's not because we are not used to things that these things are bad. I need to see the entire features system before being sure of my judgment. I may feel that some things are "strange", but for now it's impossible for me to just definitely say "it's out of place", without even knowing what i'm talking about. Having an idea and constructive criticism is great, but it's weird to me to read some radical comments focused on just a detail, without guessing the entire thing we don't really know so much about. And the ones who want to know more about skills may be right. So, interesting new approach in this update, but my question is: "If classes have good strenght and specialties, how about their limits and weaknesses?". ie if you are a great archer, being a poor or average melee fighter is not a real weakness, and being a great damage dealer with poor defense is hardly more than of a counterpart designing style. These following examples are not the best ever because it's really basic, but in BG: it was hard to make powerfull charismatic fighters great in speaking with people and in fights, rogues were essential but weak, priests were usefull for the long journeys, but bad in fights, wizards were great with their varied spells but they didn't last long with just them, poor wisdom characters were easily mind controled, etc... I just want to learn more in order to make my own idea about all this stuff.

oh yeah! I would love to see some publishers bubblering because games like Wasteland 2 are a succes. "Whaaat?? But it's unfair... WE own the money! WE deserve to own even more!..." Freaking coward idiots.

May be too complicated. If the baron rewarded you with a symbol of high chivalry for having killed this fearsome epic dragon nobody could approach (here is the epicness. It is not in the badge or the level AGX), then the item he gave you should not become a burden. What i mean is that equiping such an item will prevent you from equipping another one wich is usefull. And such detailed treatment may required large quantity of scripts. However i never found a really cool way to introduce this in the lore, even when i played a Royal guard Chief in a RolePlayed MMO long ago. It was different kinds of badges or coats of arms refering to the grade of the officer, and the tag was in the character's name to be recognized by every player. But i feel that when my character performed some epic achievments in Baldur's gate, i would have liked that, sometimes, my reputation have spread enough to influence some people. In a good, or a bad way. It's about reactivity i guess. However, like said "curryinahurry", few chances that PoE allow you character to become powerful enough to perform such epic and glorious/infamous achievment.

I did not forgot at all. It's just that i didn't think multiplayer was supported. Great news if it is. Hum... BG or IWD never ran well too long for me in multiplayer back in time (few hours, and game broken). And i tried lan with them last year. The result was a broken Windows OS >>> Erase HD and reinstall windows from scratch. Quite weird.

Exactly what i thought. I don't understand why people can't realize that a cRPG is awfull to play with a controller. That's just so obvious... And there are wireless Keyboards and mouses. PoE with a controller may be as awful as Skyrim with Keyboard + mouse. It's either the game is drawn because of compatibility with controllers (because it's designed for K&M >>> party managment, RTwP, etc...), either the playability with a controller will just be awfull. They did not play any bad ported games. No need to even speak about the time (and thus money) needed to perform this bad port...

I mean as in in-game quest token that will be recognised by npcs since some players wish for kinda "physical" proof of their achievements. An excuse to introduce this stuff may be like: "Baron: Great friends! You served well my land killing this giant dragon! here is a proof of your achievments. Now, everybody will well know who you are and will give you the respect you deserve *giving a recognizable symbol of a high level chivalry officer of the land*" Or for evil: "What an epic achievment to have killed so many soldiers... Let's take the baron's amulet as a reward. Everyone will learn to fear our might!" Obviously, the item should not be an usable one as you may sell/lost or don't have the use of it. More like an invisible one wich can be viewed in kind of reputation list.

Totally agree with Lephys. And i think Obs said that they would not have done this poll if there were any chance for the game to be worse doing it and adding stretch goals. So, it's a safe thing. Don't know where i read this, maybe along this topic. And like Lephys said, it's far easier and faster to add this content now than after (as an expansion for example).

True. I said this just because in most IE games, your achievments in the region the game took place were obvious. The fact you may be recongnized or not is another matter. But i think this may be like a reputation, because all reputations are not affecting all people in the world. However i don't know how to manage this kind of stuff to make this feature non too time-consuming.

Arcanum was great for this. But, i really don't want a random choice. I generally imagine a background/story for my character. And these kind of traits can be helpfull. But randomizing them may, in most cases, end up with a character profile i didn't want, contradicting the back story i wrote. Giving the choice to pick one, two, three... or none is the best to me.

May be a good idea. I probably would not have the will to fight Elminster in a BG1 playthrough. It's just another type of reputation i guess. PoE may become a saga. So, if it's like BG, we may end the game with a relatively low level... Too low for such a thing. But it's just my guess.

1- I guess no multiplayer at all. Tell me if i'm wrong. 2- No RvR style combats. sounds more like a MMO feature. 3- There won't be any. Each class will have possibilities to learn abilities from other classes. As an example, a warrior may cast some low level spells, but will be less effective than a wizard. And learning this kind of ability will be an investment. ie spending points you could have spent in something more warrior like. Once more, correct me if i'm wrong. 4- Epicness will be present, but in a few occurences. There is an update speaking about it. 3 words to describe music. Epic is not one of them. 5- To me it's like allowing a wizard to use his powers for other purposes than fighting: growing flowers, coloring apparels, etc... Hum, ok. Only imagination should allow this in a video game. Easier to allow the character to manage his stronghold, like explained in an other update. 6- Not likely, like previous post said. 7- I think PoE is very likely to allow this. There are some interviews detailing some ways NPC may react to your character, depending reputation, factions, (...), and even the way your character picked his words before. You may too become something like a cruel hero or a charming and diplomat ass hole. 8- Yeah, Must be a joke, a bad one. Additional content is not a bad thing. But there are many reasons why DLC are mostly so lame albeit they are soooooo expansive. 9- My english is bad: did not understood anything. Conclusion: you may be really disappointed.

Obs said that the delay would be short. Hard to figure out how much time, but i guess few weeks is the scope. Furthermore, the "released when done" seems to be the better way to craft a game to me.

I use to play an undead army in Warhammer since the 90's. While skeleton and zombies are weak, they are relentless, they don't know what fatigue, fear, suffering is. They have the special rule fear, which can make flee the thougher warriors... I like the idea of this relentless horde with no will, just cursed and controled as tools... They should pursue you for years without beeing bored. Diablo 1 was great to inspire fear. Music, dark dungeons, shouts in the dark, (unhability to run too?)... Even the powerless ennemies were fearsome, and that's why Diablo I is great in my opinion, and Diablo II is just a piece of trash. Someone said ambience is a great deal here. And i'm agree. It's not easy to craft well. But some special rules that can inspire the idea of this fearsome, relentless horde may do the job. I don't think that new is always better. Well crafted old may just be ok.

Whether more companions and wilderness areas are non-essential is moot, however. For some people they are quite essential. I wouldn't mind the release date being delayed if that meant a bigger game with more joinable NPCs. Agree. It's subjective. For me, it's essential. For some others it's not.

Oh, jeebus. That's a broken chain of logic if I ever saw one. Philosophy has advanced a bit since Plato and Aristotle, y'know. (1) Consider a lump of uranium ore. Observe a nucleus decay. What is the efficient cause of that particular nucleus, rather than some other nucleus, decaying? (2) Why is it not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes? For example, what if the Universe (in some sense) is infinitely old (in some sense?) (2b) How about a circular chain of causes. What if time is circular rather than linear, and the Universe's ending is the cause of its beginning? How do you rule this out? (3), (4), and (5) follow from your flawed premises; therefore they are necessarily flawed. (5b) Why is the First Cause necessarily God? Edit: your first statement is also incorrect. You do not need to have an absolute point of reference to be able to value or assess information, or anything else. You can always value or assess it relative to other, relative points of reference. Which is what we all do, even Platonists like you -- the only difference is that you mistakenly believe your relative points of reference are absolutes. Well you saw the same things as me. But it's just a different way to view things. I'm agree with you (once more?). But i don't think anybody can prove his assessments when it's about religion vs science. And it seems to be something like this here. I really think history was a better topic :D

"It is your liberty to believe in 'X'. You may believe and by proclamation, that God is a consequence, but making the statement doesn't make it true. Equating God or the belief there of, as merely a way to explain something not understood is a bit narrow too, don't you think?" That's why i wrote "To me..." and not "The only truth is...". And it does not make it false too. I don't think one opinion is better than another, or more narrow minded. As an example, to me, it would be more narrow minded to claim that God exists just for the sake of claiming it. Be sure it's not an offense. We are just constructed in a different way. "I'm not sure what you mean exactly with 'God has the same source as sciences'. I could presume you mean he follows his own design (he wouldn't be a creator if he didn't)." I meant that sciences, since the start, tries to explain the world. Why the apple always fall on the ground? Why water become solidified when it's cold? Why the sun is moving in the sky? And so on. And for things that science could not explain, there were "it must be a powerful something than created it all". Like Gagarine said "I went to the sky, but i never saw God". Just to say that science explained many things last 2000 years, but i even doubt science will explain ALL, even in a very far future. So there is still a place for God. I won't speak about creationism, but i guess you have an idea about my feelings. "Logical deduction has to be used in finding the essence in material substance. If you really think faith is without logic, how can you logically say that? Can you prove it is without logic, even empirically? In the realm of apologetics, I don't believe so.." It is just that in my mind (i would be surprised to be wrong though), faith is the ability to believe in something/someone without any proof. That's why i said "faith is not about logic". But i think that faith is not just about religion. Faith is about confidence in people you don't know too, about giving money to Obsidian during a kickstarter campaign, and so on. I really think people who believe in God are some lucky people. It would be great if i could believe, but i just can't. I was not determined to, in the same way that Asian people are determined to have narrowed eyes or African people to have black skin (i really believe we are all fully determined since the start and that we have very few true choices to make in a lifetime). Is it kind of faith too? Maybe. But remember that i'm french and that i only know a few english words "I'm not saying logic is faith, but rather, logic (reality) naturally leads to faith; which logically, should lead to an ultimate, rational interface (opposed to the unknowable aspects, omni-x); whom I believe is Jesus Christ. Trust is a different story; that involves faith again but without the knowledge to gauge entirely." I just can't understand what you mean. Is it because my english is not so great? Or because it seems that you say it's easier to believe in god than in people? Well, i know the vast majority of people are bad people, but i like people. So, i trust them by default. Trust is a gift to me, a gift that can be taken back. I will do many things for the sake of people i don't even know, but i do it because i want to. Not because a book told me to. I really have respect for people who believe. So, i won't speak about Jesus, and things like that, because i'm afraid that my opinion may hurt you, and i really don't want to. As for the logic (or reality) naturally leading to faith, which is weird to me. Well, i guess history is an easier thing to discuss about. I often speak about religion with various believers, and i've learnt that even when it is interesting, nobody will never change his mind with just some words. Plus, i don't try to prove i'm right. Everybody is different. My truth is not yours, and i don't want my truth being the only truth in the world. It would be sad. Is there any update about religions and faith in PoE?