kanisatha

He's actually said as much both in a post on the Beamdog forum a while back and in an interview with a gaming website in which he says he considers everything done with NwN2 to have been a bad mistake and that OE took NwN2 in the wrong direction.

So I've been playing Witcher 3 for a few days now, and while I really like the game overall, I am really hating combat even though I'm playing on the easiest setting. It is especially tiresome and painful when up against multiple enemies. Any practical combat (mechanics) tips? I'm playing on PC with keyboard and mouse.

Bro, how could you forget the classic post GB non FR D&D game Planetscape: Tournament? Thing about the FR games is that theoretically it's a pretty diverse setting, but they hardly ever use anything apart from its Tolkienesque bits like the Sword Coast and that has got really, really stale even with the dearth of recent D&D games. It would be fine- better at least- having only one 'world' if people used the other parts of that world a bit more. Huh. I always thought ToEE was set in Greyhawk. I guess not. Never played that game, obviously.

You don't have a party of companions traveling with you, but there are memorable characters that you have to visit during quests. You also get to accompany/escort certain characters during some quests. At any rate, you won't feel alone. The game has a full cast of colorful characters, each with their own story. Thank you! I went ahead and picked up the game (along with Tower of Time). Another question about TW3: I know there are a LOT of mods out there for the game. I hate having to mod my games. Are any mods absolutely essential to playing TW3? As in, without them my game will be sort of broken?

Point being, you can't really compare the D:OS series to anything. That's how unique it is, and it's the real factor to its success. It was never trying to become a spiritual successor to anything that came before, and completely succeeded in what it set out to do, a rarity in today's gaming market. One could argue that the D:OS series are barely cRPGs, but it's the closest classification that exists for a game merging tactical combat with cRPG-type exploration. I can easily see D:OS2 leading the charge for a revival of turn-based tactical combat in the near future. Or at the very least, inspiring a lot of turn-based combat systems in taking field conditions into account. You are right about this, and this is exactly why it bothers me when people try to create an equivalency between PoE2 and D:OS2 to justify their claim for a TB PoE2. D:OS2 is not an RPG. It is a TB tactical combat game with some RPG elements thrown in as a very secondary aspect of the game. And the fact that it is a tactical combat game first and foremost is why I don't care for it. As a separate note, it also bothers me greatly that some TB fans (obviously not all, but including some in this forum) have an entitlement attitude when it comes to their preference for TB over RTwP, meaning that a developer who creates a RTwP game must as an obligation include a TB option if they want their game to be considered "good", because making the game RTwP was a "mistake".

But neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence whatsoever that TB is the reason for D:OS2's sales success. Not one shred of evidence. D:OS2 has co-op play, so maybe Obsidian should add co-op to PoE2. D:OS2 has complete player freedom, so maybe Obsidian should add that to PoE2. D:OS2 has DM mode, so maybe Obsidian should add that to PoE2. I could go on and on. I'm really sick of the whole 'D:OS2 is the awesomest game ever and developers should make every game exactly like D:OS2' meme. D:OS2 sucks. I do not want PoE2 or any other Obsidian game to be anything like D:OS2. Ever.

I've been debating whether to pick up The Witcher 3 GOTY on Steam for $20. I know about all of the love out there for this game, but not being party-based is one of my deal breaker criteria. So I'm wondering if all of the other awesome qualities of this game can make up for it not having a party of companions. I would appreciate thoughts and opinions.

If people didn't like PoE2 it was not because of RTwP. There are a great many number of RPGs out there with RTwP that have sold really well. For the amount of resources that would go into creating a TB mode for PoE2, the number of additional sales they would get just from some RTwP haters would be minimal and not worth the investment. And I would bet anything that the TB fans, being the everything-should-be-my-way type that they tend to be, would still hate on PoE2 anyway because the TB mode doesn't totally 100% satisfy them the way they want the game to be. I'm with @Archaven in seeing this as a complete waste of resources for Obsidian.

To be quite honest, I have the exact opposite reaction to the OP's re. why Obs hasn't made any comment. I think this was a feature they thought about including at the very beginning, and they played around with the code for it within the game, but then abandoned the idea as being unworkable. But core elements of the code remain within the game. And something in the most recent patch unintentionally triggered that old bit of code. I just don't see any evidence anywhere to believe this is something they're working on right now.

The upcoming major patch for P:K, 1.2, is all about loading times, so hopefully that major issue will be resolved soon.

Project Bluebook starts on the History Channel early January. From the ads for it, it looks really interesting.

Can you expand on the Pathfinder issues? I'd love to pick it up but it sounds like it needs more time to cook. It's been significantly patched and fixed already, and is in a perfectly playable state right now. And they're continuing to work on it including releasing DLCs. Owlcat is a very small company, maybe only like ten or fewer people in it. Yet they've done amazing things with the patching even while also adding in new things (features, classes, companions, areas, etc.). They're probably working 12-15 hours a day!

I agree with @Mirandel's and others' arguments about immersion. TB definitely breaks immersion for me and is very jarring and unnatural. Let's keep in mind that in reality all games in this broad genre involving exploring and roleplaying within one's environment are in fact real time (with or without pause). It is only the combat part of the game that is turn based or not. Therefore, RT is clearly the natural default for such games, and it is logical that it would be so for precisely immersion reasons. So then the question for me is why, within a game, do we need to break from RT immersion and switch to TB just when we encounter enemies, especially when RT can include a pause function? Some argue because it makes combat more "tactical." I would counter that combat is/can be just as tactical in RT. All of the tactical elements of combat that I encountered in D:OS I also very much encountered in PoE. The difference between RTwP and TB during combat is only in the player's ability to successfully manage those tactical elements. It seems to me that some people are able to manage handling multiple things simultaneously, whereas others are comfortable handling those multiple things only sequentially.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Starfield. The setup of the game based on what little has so far been revealed looks really interesting to me. I've never played any of the Mass Effect games and as such have no interest in Bethesda recreating an ME-like game. That they have said it will be a single player game from the ground up is very heartening. It also looks like it will be third person and not first person, again something critical for me. I'm fine with it being an open world ARPG. On a sidenote, I have no interest in The Outer Worlds.

If Deadfire gets a big enough sales boost from this though, all it's going to do is further reinforce the idea that turn based sells better than RTWP. Thus providing even less incentive for turn based games to add an optional real time mode. But other recent TB RPGs have done poorly, sales-wise: T:ToN, BT4; and Realms Beyond barely made it across the line for its Kickstarter. TB comes across as being extra popular because TB fans tend to be much more vocal and insistent on their preference than RTwP fans. Because what people don't seem to realize is that combat is not everything in an RPG title. T:ToN and BT4 sold badly because they sucked, not because they had turn-based combat (although in ToN case, it was really horrible). This is exactly what I was trying to say here. Neither D:OS2's good sales nor T:ToN/BT4's poor sales have much if anything to do with TB combat. There is no correlation. Separately, if you look at people's comments. either here or in other forums, RTwP fans will usually say something along the lines of: I (much) prefer RTwP, but I don't mind playing some TB games (which is my own position). By contrast, TB fans will usually say: I won't touch the game unless it has TB combat. A side note on @Manveru123's T:ToN comment: I liked and enjoyed playing T:ToN. I found the story interesting, liked most of what was in the game, and my only issue was with how very short/small the game was. And in parallel, I only recently played Ps:T for the first time, as a prelude to playing T:ToN, and found Ps:T utterly boring and silly. I've long heard these forum stories about the "incredible story" and "amazing companions" in Ps:T and was extremely disappointed. You say there's no correlation, but we aren't talking about the effect a turn based feature has on sales. We are talking about how companies interpret the sales of a turn based game. Historically game publishers have no earthly clue what makes a game good or bad. Thus, they try to attach the sales situation to what features a game has. "Turn based games selling better = turn based makes a game good" is how they have historically seen it when compared to similar situations. Just like how every FPS game needed a multiplayer mode back in the day, even if it was just tacked on and bad. It's not about what makes the game good, but what they think is making a game sell more. So then how are these developers interpreting TB games that sell poorly? Going off of your line above: Turn based games selling worse = what? Essentially you're saying if a TB game does well, it must be because it's TB. But if a TB game does poorly, it must be because of any other factor than that it is TB. That's rather convenient. Any developer interpreting things this way would soon be out of business.

Oh yeah, I should have specified BG2 EE and not 1, but I guess I really should just go play BG1 first even though people recommend skipping straight to 2. I hope you won't skip 1. I have always found 1 to be way more interesting and fun than 2.

If Deadfire gets a big enough sales boost from this though, all it's going to do is further reinforce the idea that turn based sells better than RTWP. Thus providing even less incentive for turn based games to add an optional real time mode. But other recent TB RPGs have done poorly, sales-wise: T:ToN, BT4; and Realms Beyond barely made it across the line for its Kickstarter. TB comes across as being extra popular because TB fans tend to be much more vocal and insistent on their preference than RTwP fans. Because what people don't seem to realize is that combat is not everything in an RPG title. T:ToN and BT4 sold badly because they sucked, not because they had turn-based combat (although in ToN case, it was really horrible). This is exactly what I was trying to say here. Neither D:OS2's good sales nor T:ToN/BT4's poor sales have much if anything to do with TB combat. There is no correlation. Separately, if you look at people's comments. either here or in other forums, RTwP fans will usually say something along the lines of: I (much) prefer RTwP, but I don't mind playing some TB games (which is my own position). By contrast, TB fans will usually say: I won't touch the game unless it has TB combat. A side note on @Manveru123's T:ToN comment: I liked and enjoyed playing T:ToN. I found the story interesting, liked most of what was in the game, and my only issue was with how very short/small the game was. And in parallel, I only recently played Ps:T for the first time, as a prelude to playing T:ToN, and found Ps:T utterly boring and silly. I've long heard these forum stories about the "incredible story" and "amazing companions" in Ps:T and was extremely disappointed.

If Deadfire gets a big enough sales boost from this though, all it's going to do is further reinforce the idea that turn based sells better than RTWP. Thus providing even less incentive for turn based games to add an optional real time mode. But other recent TB RPGs have done poorly, sales-wise: T:ToN, BT4; and Realms Beyond barely made it across the line for its Kickstarter. TB comes across as being extra popular because TB fans tend to be much more vocal and insistent on their preference than RTwP fans.

Indeed, and one could also hope it sets a precedent for devs like Larian and inXile to go the other way.

Since I will never play this game TB this has no relevance for me. What intrigues me, though, is the number of RTwP preferring folks in this thread who are so very supportive of Obsidian creating this option for those who prefer TB. I contrast this with the pro-TB totalitarians in the inXile and Larian forums who attack and ridicule anyone who even suggests a RTwP option for a TB game. Seems like accommodating others' preferences is a one-way street for a lot of people.

Given that Obsidian usually has three games in the works at the same time, a POE3 wouldn't preclude the existence of an isometric sci-fi. Nope. The Outer Worlds is the sci-fi game. Too bad it is first-person, but that is Obsidian's sci-fi setting from here on. Sawyer's historical RPG idea is much more likely, as well as more in the Pillars setting. As for the whole bit about comparisons with D:OS2, there is really only one thing about D:OS2 that got so many people to buy the game: co-op play. That's the new "in" thing with many young (millennial) gamers these days. But since I consider co-op/multiplayer play to be utterly stupid, I'm not going to be swayed by an argument for making more games co-op.

With Microsoft as future publisher, i can not see an PoE 3 either. I like the game very much, i don't know why it sells so badly. I think there will be more games in the PoE setting for sure, though may not carry the PoE title. They will likely be more towards AAA, open-world, third-person perspective ARPG.

I got tired of the CW superhero shows and quit watching them this season except for Arrow. But even with Arrow I skipped the crossover episode because I've never cared for the crossover episodes which I found to be rather silly.

It is mentioned (and subsequently covered in some online stories) in CDPR's corporate filings: two big RPGs to be released between 2017 and 2021. the first we know is Cyberpunk. The second, CDPR has commented it is not a Witcher game and that's all they will say about it.

No they're done, but I meant it as their most recent game. Larian is well into Project Gustav.