Gromnir

get rid of animal and give the class a resource called prestige or glory or ego. give prestige points for... whatever: score a crit hit, kill an opponent, receive damage over X points (+some additional amount per level so as to scale), etc. create a finite list o' prestige point possibles. next, create a list o' feats that the musketeer, swashbuckler, whatever could spend those points on in a fight. would work a bit like the cipher, but the range o' possible abilities would likely be closer to what the current paladin has. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

for the last 1/3 o' the game, we have difficulty coming up with a rational reason to choose fists over equippable weapons. if Gromnir were comparing a monk fist to a superb ________, that would be a bit myopic, no? chances are that our superb weapon has a couple more qualities added that our fists cannot have. monk fists are great, and perhaps better than similar weapons the monk is likely to get for the first 2/3 of the game. unfortunately, the ability to imbue or choose weapons with qualities particular useful to our monk build (tank, striker, hybrid,etc.) makes weapons, weapons that ain't fists, better. "Doesn't really make sense that Intelligence would increase a defense called Will, but resolve wouldn't. So let's rename the defense without really changing it. "INT: Logic" yeah, well, the reverse is just as true. have resolve modify logic is no less nonsensical than intellect modifying will. leave name. HA! Good Fun! ps am not seeing a good reason to make fists a better choice for 2/3 and other stuff for end. if that were the intentional evolution, we need an explanation.

few starting observations: the animal companion has been problematic from the start o' beta. the ranger were envisioned as a ranged heavy-hitter. the rogue and ranger were s'posed to be the weapon-based heavy-hitters (not our label, obsidian's.) so then, remove animal companion from the ranger and you got a class that is very similar to the rogue. is the major obstacle we see. developers consider it important to give the different classes unique gameplay. a rogue that has a few abilities that is a bit more ranged focused is likely not the kinda uniqueness obsidian were envisioning. am agreeing that the animal companion don't work... at least they don't work for Gromnir, but am not seeing an easy solution. we recommended dumping the ranger multiple times during the beta. we also noted that the best way to improve the ranger were to exorcise the animal companions from the class. even so, we can't offer an alternative to the ranger that that is less fundamental than scrapping it and starting over from square one. the animal is what makes the ranger different. the animal is what makes the ranger the only class we have zero interest in playing. HA! Good Fun!

as meaningless as it is, the bestiary indicates that shadows is "Level 1." HA! Good Fun! ps so many changes made to poe has been for no other reason than that people feel that X should be more like Y. if having shadows show up as level 1 in the bestiary emasculates, then simple change number to 3 as a salve to pride would be the absolute easiest fix... evar. edit: removed colon from quote

Gromnir, really, what is the point of coming here... Making hilariously false claims, then then ruthlessly defending those for a dozen pages by posting Starwars clips and calling ALL your opponents stupid, and then just bowing out of the debate with a pointless little nugget of Nostalgia? am trying to think o' another star wars clip we have used... ever. is possible as we have been posting for a few years. am actual not much o' a sw fan. and no, not all folks who disagree with us is stoopid, and is actual rare we make such a claim. is only a very small number o' folks we have dismissed as utterly incapable o' recognizing or utilizing reason. so, congrats? smarty folks can make stoopid arguments. it happens. is few folks who we would call hopeless. is an extreme small club, as hard to believe as you might find that. btw, posting last doesn't = stun wins. am knowing that to you it must feels that way, but... *shrug* for a number o' posts now, we have been adding 0 new-- both of us is repeating. is spam. so, say something new, and Gromnir will happily indulge your need to show folks how obtuse you can be. otherwise, if you wanna post last, again, we oblige. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78279-rpgcodex-review-1-hŵrpa-dwrp/?p=1676192 shoulda' ended with the above link...or a bit before. HA! Good Fun!

big as purple and deep as banana. HA! Good Fun!

you need to post more. makes us nostalgic o' the times when tiax were posting at Co6. 'course, given his board handle, we believed he were doing intentional. am almost certain that you are doing accidental. HA! Good Fun!

How so? I'll ask again. Exactly Why is it unfair for a reviewer to not give a **** about the reasons why the developers did what they did? Is a Mass Effect 3 review UNFAIR simply because it bashes the game's ending before researching Casey Hudson's explanation for it? didn't ask for research. and if you need a definition o' fair, we suspect self-help is in order. as we stated already, we have failed to get you to understand basic definitions more than once. am doubting that you are an MBA recipient, yes? a decade or more ago a stanford professor did a study regarding notions o' fairness and discovered, almost as an amusing aside, that MBA recipients were disproportionate in their failure to recognize any concrete notion o' fair. there is actual a pulitzer prize for criticism. film critic, roger ebert, received the award for movie review. perhaps you could start there if you want kinda an accepted standard for fairness in reviews. am not expecting a codexian review to adhere to any kinda accepted standard for reviews, but if you want a definition, pulitzer could be a start. HA! Good Fun!

No, you don't demand agreement with the devs, but with you. You just use the devs as an excuse as to why your opinion is right and everyone disagreeing is "ranting", despite them painstakingly spelling out their reasoning for having the opinion you disagree with. we loathe bad reasoning. enoch has observed that perhaps we are too focused on smiting the bad reason, rational or logic than we is with the issue at hand, and am expecting he is correct. most folks who is reason challenged don't realize just how bass ackwards is their reasoning and it is almost impossible to get'em to recognize their faults. case in point. we not need folks to agree that the poe attribute mechanics is great. after all, we would like to see changes made to that mechanic. doesn't change the flaws in the review to acknowledge that we also see ways to improve the attributes. you not need to agree with us either, but you is gonna need do a better job o' disagreeing with us if you wanna be taken serious. HA! Good Fun!

Nope sorry. I don't see the point in dwelling on "intentions" when giving a gameplay review. Again, one does not need to explain to the reader all the the reasons why DA2 has reused maps and parachuting mobs. Just that it does, and maybe the resulting implications to gameplay because it does. Nor do I see how it's more "fair" for a reviewer to ignore or dismiss away a game feature he feels hurt the game simply because Developer X had a really really good reason for putting it in the game around we go. and we never suggested that a reviewer should " ignore or dismiss away a game feature he feels hurt the game simply because Developer X had a really really good reason for putting it in the game." however, it is unfair to purposeful avoid recognition that a disliked feature has a reason behind its inclusion. the reviewer need not agree that the reason is substantial enough, but pretend that it don't exist is no different than pretending that the welfare children don't exist when blasting welfare dollars spent. the reviewer can point to obsidian claims and observe that whatever were their goals, they failed in application because ___________ . bash obsidian after recognition? sure thing. been there. done that... more times than can be counted. again, we didn't get much further than attributes, but that is as far as we needed to see that the review were gonna be a codexian preaching to the codexian faithful w/o any attempt to be fair and observe that those features he found offensive to the reactionary pretensions o' his congregation might actual have value. bring down fire and brimstone After actual dismissing the espoused value o' obsidian attributes? why not? as we said, nobody in their right mind would expect genuine fair from codex, but most folks (the aforementioned spazmo included) at least pretended to make a show o' being open-minded and reflective. HA! Good Fun!

I can't support that statement. They sold this game on being the best of the IE games. Explicitly, terms of combat, PoE is supposed to be like Icewind Dale. Combat in PoE is only superficially like Icewind Dale. When dealing with things like class design, soft-counter philosophy, engagement, spell design, item usage, combat states, etc.....combat is nothing like Icewind Dale, let alone the IE game that people were actually clamoring for. actually, obsidian stated more than once that poe would be inspired by many older games Including the ie games. iwd combat were inspiration. ps:t companion interaction were an inspiration. etc. the thing is the obsidians also specific noted that they were limited as to what they could do. obsidian noted, more than once, that the diversity and sophistication o' bg2 combat encounters were outta reach simple 'cause poe would be game 1 o' a new ip. obsidian also stated that they were not wedded to taking everything from the ie/d&d crpgs and keeping it the same in poe, 'cause many such things done in those games were stoopid. nevertheless, the initial goals remained constant. we do believe that trying to be all the ie games were a mistake. is not that their goal changed, but perhaps it shoulda. we mentioned this earlier with senuki's misunderstanding regarding quantity v. quality. after bg2, people complained o' the dearth o' "exploration." so obsidian had to make a choice about density. if you want lots o' places to go, and many individual and insular quests to lets folks explore, those resources need come from somewhere. well, you can't make as many eyeless/durlag locations and quest loci if you are spreading quests out to foster more exploration. is possible that obsidian made to many compromises in a vain attempt to actual be all the ie games to all people. HA! Good Fun!

Maybe he just doesn't agree with you that it is a good mechanic or doesn't serve to achieve whatever it is supposed to achieve, despite it working as intended on a technical level? so, it is your suggestion that Gromnir is demanding that the reviewer agree with obsidian? HA! ... HHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAA! you are gonna have a hard time finding any single poster who has more frequent disagreed with the obsidians (which includes many former troika and black isle developers) than Gromnir. the suggestion that we would demand agreement is high-larious. disagree all he wishes. am not certain what it is about some folks being so damned obdurate. HA! Good Fun!

nope, but they should be fair. were no mind reading necessary and the fellow ranting were aware and present for many such debates. if he were unaware, then, if one wishes to actual be fair, one should at least ask the question: why? why did obsidian do thus? answers is pretty obvious, so absence o' fair is unforgivable. rant. and no, obsidian stayed steadfast regarding ultimate goals. they have been refining the mechanics to more fully realize their intentions. they have tossed out a few tokens to the fans who needed to be appeased. the fact that they ain't changed their intent is what the reviewer and you is railing 'bout. all the wailing and gnashing o' teeths and still cain and sawyer did not budge? how dare they? HA! Good Fun!

well, you kinda can. remove old portrait from poe folder. rename your new portrait choice same as old and place in same destination folder. HA! Good Fun!

So, just because a mechanic is intended to work the way it does, it can't be criticized for working the way it does? sure it can be criticized. complete fail to observe that the feature works as intended and the reasoning behind the feature, particularly when the value o' the future as intended is a known quantity that were debated into insensibility is disingenuous at best. is similar to folks who complain about all the tax money that goes to welfare recipients w/o stating important facts. observe stats regarding the billions o' welfare dollars spent and the numbers o' able-bodied and unemployed folks getting a "free-ride" from the government? those stats need not be wrong to make condemnation o' welfare a rant if one fails to also note that the majority o' welfare monies actual goes to support children. even folks such as Gromnir who thinks welfare is busted gotta at least recognize such factors as the children getting welfare aid before we claim the whole system needs be abandoned. etc. nobody expects a codex review to be fair. nevertheless, to purposeful ignore that the attributes work as intended and what were reasoning behind such an attribute mechanic is, at best, disingenuous. is a misrepresentation. is fraudulent 'cause it presents one side o' the exhaustive debate without even recognizing the existence o' the other. as we said in our first post in the thread, "mat516 seemed to express our concerns about the review already, so no need to repeat. the thing is, where matt no doubt read the whole thing, we couldn't. am admitting that we got a few paragraphs deep before we realized it were offering little more than a bad nostalgia flashback to too many rants we recall from a couple years o' poe development. the disenfranchised, limited by the obsidian message board medium, found a new outlet to release pent up vitriol? am not actually opposed to such rampages as Gromnir has indulged once... maybe twice. " matt got further along than did Gromnir, but he saw similar problems. we still ain't read more than a couple paragraphs, so we defer to matt 'bout the entirety o' the review. regardless, from what we saw and am seeing in these posts, the review... wasn't. it weren't any kinda review from what little we saw. it were a collection o' the complete myopic and one-sided rants from folks who has been angry 'bout obsidian since early in the beta. those rants is fine on a message board where folks is attempting to convince obsidian to do more like d&d/ie game hard counters and insta-kills. nevertheless, if you wanna be taken serious as a review, you gotta do more than simple collect all the old grognard rants from +8 months o' beta and paste 'em together with a few screenies. the review weren't a review as much as it were a sermon delivered to the faithful. only folks who is gonna get useful from the codexian review is the folks who were already True-Believers. the review were a joke. btw, is nothing wrong with joke reviews. we don't get the animosity level'd at joke reviews... or any review. why should we care what a review says anymore than what some random poster here or elsewhere says? we don't. we played the game, so what purpose does the review serve? HA! Good Fun!

the reviewer has fundamental misconceptions about the mechanics. boosting attributes does result in very useful bonuses. and no, you can't dump any attribute without it resulting in pain. the reviewer is just as oblivious as were you in this matter, and obsidian already explained all o' this regardless... which you and sensuki is also knowing. you can't be helped. we can't even get you to understand basic definition o' strawman for chrissakes, so how can we get you to recognize a misconception you has been making since the early beta. you don't like that poe attributes is less vital? fine. but if you can't see the problem with how the reviewer were complaining 'bout both the lack o' significance in pumping attributes as well as claiming obvious dump attributes w/o also recognizing what poe attributes is clear intended to contribute, then we cannot help you. you heard obsidian explanations and you is still acting oblivious. don't like the obsidian explanation? fine. but be obdurate to a comical degree? why? HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

So, what you are saying is that the reviewer was right and the bonus are miniscule and underwhelming? Gosh, if only he had written that. dear lord, what is wrong with you folks? the boosts or penalties is NOT actual insignificant or unimportant. however, the attribute values ain't vital and they ain't s'posed to result in extreme harsh obstacles for those who do not choose optimal builds. the attribute costs do not overshadow talent choices and power choices. the bonuses is only underwhelming if you have a clear misconception about poe attributes. the value o' pumped might is only miniscule when compared to the value o' pumped strength in some other less balanced and less rational game systems. *whoosh* right over the head o' stun and antless. HA! Good Fun!

Just read the review again. Nope he did not say that. Instead, he said this: ^Nowhere does he say they're meaningless. In fact, he doesn't even imply that they're meaningless, because doing so would have changed his argument considerably. He'd no longer be able to argue, as he does in the second paragraph there, about choosing specific attributes for "combat duty" (ie. combat roles...like Tank and ranged power) Imagine that, Gromnir. Coming on here and trying to combat perceived "misinformation" by employing.....Actual misinformation. Typical of you. see above again, claimed obvious dumps and, as antless observes, "miniscule" benefits is showing a clear misunderstanding and perpetuating misinformation. HA! Good Fun!

I don't doubt it. Just to clear that up for you: just because someone say something you don't want to hear, doesn't make what they are saying a rant, or misinformation for that matter. He also never called attributes meaningless, but rather underwhelming, miniscule and overshadowed by level bonuses and armor penalties. it were a rant and it were misinformation. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78279-rpgcodex-review-1-hŵrpa-dwrp/?p=1670748 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78279-rpgcodex-review-1-hŵrpa-dwrp/?p=1670841 the same rants were ubiquitous during the early beta. the review were not offering new observations but were rehashing very old issues that the developers had already specific addressed. sensuki and others didn't necessarily like josh responses regarding attribute balance, but there is no question that the obsidian reasons were rational and reasonable. regardless, insofar as attribute pump v dump, so value is miniscule v. meaningless? HA! starve on the difference there. is a ludicrous attempt to distinguish. you cannot dump a poe attribute without it causing pain. dump intelligence on your melee rogue means you will have a commensurate will save penalty. you will, likely feel compelled to pump resolve to balance, or all those poe domination and confusion effects the ie game diehards were mewling 'bout earlier in this thread will be crits taking you complete outta many such fights. is not a safe dump attribute if you gotta pay for the dump by boosting another attribute that you would not necessarily have pumped... or take a talent you would not otherwise have needed. also, yeah, the poe attributes is less impactful than in D&D and some other systems. that were freaking intentional. thank you very much mr. reviewer. the attributes in poe is not a death sentence for those who do not reach certain thresholds. we played the following priest o' wael character in hard mode m 10 c 10 d 10 p 16 i 16 r 16 it were very effective. our potd melee rogue were m 10 c 10 d 10 p 18 i 14 r 16 also very effective, and 'bout on par with a high might and high dex melee rogue we had created in the priest run. the attributes do not overshadow power and talent choices. the attributes is intentional not vital, so yeah, lowering an attribute or raising is less meaningful... but this were all addressed a LONG time ago, and folks such as sensuki is very much aware o' how the obsidians responded to concerns over such things. HA! Good Fun!

Is this nothing more than mad ranting? Or is it the friggin Truth? Even before development of PoE began, Certain Developers from Obsidian were criticizing the attribute system in the IE games, accurately pointing out that those games had dump stats. They told us what we all already knew: that Every class can safely dump at least half of those stats without fear of crippling their builds. They Swore to fix this design flaw in PoE. They promised us No. More. Dump. Stats. Fast forward to 2015. And what a surprise. A broken promise. There are indeed Dump stats in this game. The situation is no different than it was in the IE games. So why should PoE get a pass here? Why shouldn't we level the same criticism and scorn towards its attribute system? actually, no, it isn't true. we stopped reading the review very early. we got to the misinformation about attributes, including the reviewer's rant about how the attributes were all meaningless. pumping attributes, in the reviewer's estimation, were not having value. ... am gonna let you ruminate over that. am positive you won't see the problem with your observation, but we try. couldn't explain strawman to you, so this is likely a doomed attempt as well. HA! Good Fun!

typical we have priests in the lightest armour, even lighter than mages. the need for a heal or cleanse is more likely to be a desperation requirement than is any other kinda spell or power, so am wanting speed from our priests... which is made all the more difficult 'cause might and intelligence is our attribute focus for the priest, so we likely don't have the kinda dexterity that is gonna negate any kinda armour penalty. HA! Good Fun!

ROFL? I'd like to hear about this won't comment further than to say that we quit on witcher early because of the writing as well. maybe not worst crpg for us, but the writing were a bit immature... ironic as it were trying so/too hard to be mature and edgy. *shrug* opinions, eh? HA! Good Fun!

I'm sorry but I'm not sure how you got 'do not like' out of 'is less of a priority than good combat'. *chuckle* ignoring the somewhat over-the-top dismissive comments regarding poe role-play content, you didn't even include such as being gameplay. quibble if you will, but you are being a bit silly as poe is a rpg and it is ok for you to not like rp even so. hell, monte carlo may make you a pen pal. your attempts to explain actual reinforce illathid's observation: "Well from what I've read of Sensuki's comments, combat is the only gameplay that really matters to him. As he says himself, he doesn't "LARP" [sic]. " HA! Good Fun!

No I didn't. Why on earth would I do that to myself intentionally? The primary conflict resolution in the game is combat, and there is a lot of it. The poor combat gameplay brings down any questing that includes combat in it, particularly for long stretches. You spend a fair amount of the game in combat. The exploration gameplay is also crap, apart from looking at the for the most part pretty nice environment art. The other thing I don't like is a lot of the writing - don't like the main plot, don't really like the Dyrwood (lore of it is fine but it's a very boring and unlikeable location in game), don't really care about any of the companions and none of the secondary characters really stood out either. What does that leave? Character Creation? Leveling up? Lol I am a power gamer. Role playing is nice and all (and a lot of it in this game is pure fluff anyway), but completely secondary to the rest of the gameplay for me. Games can have poor combat and still be good games (Witcher games for instance), but this one isn't. ... is curious. you don't see the humor in explaining why you do not like role-play aspects in a role-play game? kickstarter did stress that ps:t were as much an influence for the poe development as were iwd, so at least you should not be surprised that the developers and other players might have a more... expansive perspective regarding what constitutes gameplay in a crpg such as poe. well, thankfully role-play such as poe should and does allow for folks such as sensuki to satiate the squad-based tactical combat needs w/o all that unnecessary (?) filler. the combat should be engaging, but let's not forget that combat is hardly the only gameplay in poe regardless o' your Opinion on the matter and in spite o' the stated kickstarter goals. HA! Good Fun!