Ohioastro

Well played sir!

Reading the backer tombstones is completely optional. As in, you actively have to click through multiple layers to read them; there are no required plot elements at all that use them; and they advance the game in no way. This really does come across as outrage for its own sake: this doesn't have to even imply anything at all about trans people (it could be a cross-dressing reference, for example...)

On hard they certainly can last long enough, at least for me. The summons are valuable. One note, however: you apparently can have only one active summons at a time; so there is no reason to have multiple summon invocations.

It is worth investing time in understanding how a new system works. There are threads on useful advice for beginners. Poe differs from other games in important ways; spend a bit of time practicing and you will do fine.

Rather than trying to play some other game: try playing this one. Seriously. We're reacting this way because a lot of us are familiar with the genre, and we understand how it works. Take an encounter that seems tough and try different tactics. Have ranged weapons in secondary, sneak, open with a ranged volley. Send the tank in first to catch aggro. Use the per encounter abilities early. It makes a huge difference.

I started playing computer games with Wizardry I and I'm in my 50s. I played D&D with the original three little books before they were hardcover. So, no, I don't own a console, nor am I a casual in any sense of the word. I really like roguelike games on computers, for a point of reference. Some people like chess and go. Some people like complex simulations or competitive games; I don't do multiplayer computer games because I enjoy face to face tabletop games more. One of the things that years of doing these sorts of things has done is to lead me to respect the idea that there are a lot of viable approaches to gaming. I like the IE games for a combination of tight tactical situations - basically, enjoyable puzzles; character development; and interesting stories. Along with these things there are a bunch of bells and whistles that have accumulated around these sorts of games. Some I find valuable; others I don't. For example, there are a lot of repetitive mechanical tasks - ones with zero challenge, but that cost time - that ended up being associated with roleplaying games. (e.g. limited inventory but tons of loot - so that if you're willing to slog through the tedium of a bunch of mouse clicks you can get as much money as you want.) Associating optimal game play with tedium is a terrible idea, and this is the sort of thing that really should have died decades ago. I think that a lot of roleplaying vets have jumbled together the essential and the inessential, and in places like RPG Codex this problem is especially severe. Some people, for whatever reason, simply can't step back, try and understand what others are saying, and respect alternative points of view. I've played enough games that I've seen a lot of variations in concepts, and respec is just another tool in the kit. It can be used well, or it can be used poorly. For example, there is a nifty roguelike called TOME (te4.org). It's a fun, tough game - and there is a limited, but very handy, respec (for the most recent skill points that you gained, in town only.) You can try out a skill, see how it works, and then either stick with it or change the last few points. It's actually really handy in getting to know a complex game and how it works. In this game the lore actually seems friendly to some sort of respec (abilities from former lives or the like), which is why I think that it might work. Now it also might not, and in the end none of us are designing the game. There might be more useful things for the developers to work on. But I do think that it could be an interesting addition, and not everything along these lines is a battle between the virtuous veterans and the evil casual tide.

Given that there are other threads from veterans complaining that the game is too easy on hard, having min/maxed companions would do nothing but make it easier. Min/maxing also has the consequence of making the NPCs rigid in their role: e.g. a chanter / tank is a different build than a chanter / dps, and a side consequence of making the stats imbalanced is to restrict the potential roles that a NPC can fill. Basically, a NPC should be competent at any of the roles the class should take, not a specialized glass cannon or the like.

The accurate accusations of selfishness stem from having posters who explicitly want to control the play style of other people: to the point where even having an optional toggle is unacceptable because Principles. If you want to argue that its a misallocation of Dev resources, fine. But to claim that it violates some platonic ideal of game design is laughable, and to have that delivered by rude people also makes it unconvincing.

I'd wager that the "too easy" crowd have extensive experience in the beta. This was also true for Baldurs Gate (and divinity: OS). In a complex game you can come up with munchkin moves that trivialize content. The only real solution is noting imbalanced things or going for the hardcore options.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's possible that everyone who likes it is wrong and that you're right. I think that it's more likely that it's just not to your taste - and I doubt that you're going to be able to convince an audience of more than one that your taste is objectively the best on the planet.

There are a ton of talents, far too many to choose in any one game. You don't even see the ones further down the tree until you pick the prerequisites. And if you pick up companions the game chooses their talents for you. These are all sound reasons to allow people to respec - we get, what, six out of dozens to try per character? What this does is make the vast majority of the choices irrelevant - people will go to online guides, pick the safe choices, and effectively ignore the rest. A respec gives you the chance to try out different approachs to the game. There is a reason why this is a popular option, almost always present in games. These games are long. I'm not going to run through with the same class multiple times to test out different talent builds - if I do multiple runs at all it'll be to roleplay different ways and to try radically different classes. So you have a combination of 1) many choices; 2) few you can actually take; 3) many hours per replay. That combination is a good argument for some flexibility. The slippery slope argument is remarkably weak - here is something that no one wants, which is irrelevant - but if you can do what you ask then this stupid thing could happen too! Nope. The stupid thing only happens if someone makes an argument for it.

The flavor text says that they're valuable; I think they're just loot to sell.

I just don't see the huge impact that the min-maxers here are claiming. Is 20% less damage really the end of the world?

Someone who isn't a book reader isn't the audience for this game.

You're basically asserting that respec is game-destroying without any evidence at all. Sometimes people want to try out a different build. Maybe they want to respec the choices hardcoded for the companions. Now, obviously, I could construct a respec that was overpowered (on the fly; reset class, gender, etc.) But I could also construct one that wasn't, and pretending that there is nothing but game-destroying options is neither true nor useful.

Stack deflection like crazy and wear armor. Only level 4, but the chanter tank is the most durable fellow in the party. Deflection is 70 (high resolve and perception).

People who played the backer beta, and who therefore have spent a lot of time working with the game system, should not be telling fresh players how easy the game is. In addition to being utterly unhelpful, those players don't have the benefit of extensive experience in the game. If you have actual advice, by contrast, that would be useful. My recommendation? Some encounters, like the starting bear cave, are rough if you take them at too low a level or with too few companions. The game is designed that way - you're not supposed to be able to plow through everything the first time you encounter it. If something is too tough, level up; get a larger party; try it again. And try to use scout mode etc. to see what tactics you need. Note also that you can lower difficulty for individual encounters if you want to (change it before the map that you want to reach), and you can then raise it right back.

Inventory management is my #1 complaint with all games of this genre; I end up wasting a large fraction of my time doing boring mechanical tasks. This is especially true for a game like this, where we're supposed to keep a collection of different weapon types to counter different foes. It also imbalances stats if we need to trade off constitution against mechanical tedium.

Not a single problem here - but hardware is always different from person to person. Suggest that you try the technical forums for troubleshooting.

There were twenty negative reviews before the game was even released. Which tells you something about whether these people even played the game..

There isn't kill EXP, and the boost for fewer party members is small enough that you can't trade off fewer members for higher effective character levels. Running with fewer than 6 therefore seems to simply be a form of handicapping yourself. I want all six because I'd like to see how the class mechanics work, and the more classes the merrier from that point of view.

Traditional betas suffer from a huge problem: you encounter the full game for the first time in a buggy and unfinished state. That's the #1 reason why I don't play betas: I want my first play through to be polished, not disappointing and broken. The backer beta here was, to me, a brilliant alternative: you get to test the mechanics (the real point of a beta) without having the storytelling compromised.

I got exactly what they said I'd get by being a backer: a copy of the game on release day. Backers also got access to an early beta. The fact that some people twisted this into some sort of demand that backers get early access to the release version before the press - something that was never promised - doesn't make this a problem for Obsidian. It does indicate a problem with using Kickstarter funding, namely that some people get utterly unrealistic and unreasonable expectations about what they're entitled to.

The tombstones in games like these are always filled with pop culture references, and clicking on them is utterly optional. This is just about the least intrusive in-game thing that they could do, and I'm not bothered by it.

I couldn't care less whether other people download software first. We all get to actually play at the same time...