Gromnir

it looks personal to me. Would i have liked more meaty answers? Sure, but they probably save those for the likes of Gamebanshee and Sorcerer's Place. I was happy to even get my foot in the door so to speak. Our website hasn't been able to get an interview with a developer for years. don't know you enough for it to be personal. interview is too familiar for it to be personal. couldn't pick this interview outta a line-up. that were kinda our point. *shrug* grats on getting foot in door. on positive side, maybe josh feels some sympathy for you after reading our dialogue here... gives you better follow-up. HA! Good Fun!

If people enjoy "powergaming" (whatever they consider it to mean), let them. you can keep saying that, but perhaps you should try a different approach: ask self why developers keeps finding ways to prevent powergame. like it or not, and sometimes in spite o' what they say, developers put considerable effort into prevention o' powering through games. so, ask self the why question. developers has been doing for decades. they simply morons? HA! Good Fun!

really? other than the lockpick thing, we got virtually zippo from that interview. HA! Good Fun! Some of us enjoy interviews for reasons other than trying to glean some new micro-piece of update information. you wanted to hear of josh influences perhaps? no, wait, you has been on these boards long time, so you already knew answers to those questions. hmmm. you perhaps saved josh's portrait photo? am not gonna ask why that would be something you want, but who are we to judge? oh, and for sensuki, Gromnir is not half-orc. *shrug* don't take personal, but we just don't get much from these things that seems like they were cut-and-paste jobs from a dozen other interviews. is typical only the micro-piece info that adds anything. HA! Good Fun!

"I really can't imagine how can You show something new and astonishing using the traditional hero story." we stopped with this. lack of imagination is such a terrible burden. HA! Good Fun!

well then, in retrospect, we got zippo from the interview. feel better? HA! Good Fun!

really? other than the lockpick thing, we got virtually zippo from that interview. HA! Good Fun!

the problem is those people don't necessarily have fun. again, the 2 most common complaints we has see for games is: 1) game were too easy 2) game were too difficult same game usual gets loads of complaints 1 & 2. let people do whatever they want to do does not mean you is increasing fun factor... 'cause people is stoopid. why has obsidian favoured point-buy v. rolling for stats in previous d&d games? why not just let people choose whatever starting stats they wish? these is games, so people wanna win. but the Win mentality is not a good in a game that is designed to be beatable by everybody. HA! Good Fun! ps please understand that we do not personally care if somebody powergames themselves into boredom. how you play doesn't impact us at all. nevertheless, we understand why it is in the developer's best interest to consider ways to prevent powergame.

am not sure if a poll works for us. armour class is not a d&d favorite of ours. that being said, you can't just change ac to dr (damage resistance) and keep all other combat mechanics from d&d the same. obsidian has an opportunity to do whatever they want with combat mechanics. as such, am doubting they go with a d&d-esque ac model. 'course that doesn't exactly shed light on obsidian's chosen alternative. we would like to hear obsidian's thoughts. is a square-one issue. HA! Good Fun!

extreme misleading. the reason why bg2 were created more dense by the biowarians is 'cause o' the overwhelming rejection by vocal fans o' the boring and tedious bg1 map-mowing. NO: wilderness nonsense YES: durlag's tower is good for us to be here and give you perspective on how things actual evolved. now, that being said, some folks did complain post bg2 that bio shoulds bring back map-mow, but such complaints is largely just proof that fanbases is perverse. even so, there were more than a few folks pining for ye goode olde days of mindless map exploration, which is why obsidian developers said in some previous update that there will be more wilderness explore in pe than there were in bg2, but with greater density and more... stuff. seems pointless to us. has good density on a city map with taverns and corspe-carts as 'posed to one with trees and rocks? *shrug* nevertheless, some folks wanna feels like magellan, so give'em their rocks and foliage. HA! Good Fun!

... obsidian is people'd by gamers who has been making and playing games for decades. am suspecting that if fergie walked into office today and asked general populace to come up with 30 detailed monster blocks, complete with stats and little sketch, he could have 150 response by tomorrow. bet they got loads o' ideas that were never submitted in previous game developments that they would love to use in this game. HA! Good Fun!

Surely the average gamer (who likes Planescape Torment for example) doesn't wish to be treated like a puppet on strings all the time. if the Average Gamer had bought and liked ps:t, we might not be having this conversation. ps:t did not sell by any measure that were relevant or meaningful in the industry. that being said, am guessing that as pe will avoid traditional publishing model and is being made by some of the guys that made ps:t, much of what you liked about ps:t will be in pe... but obsidian clear learned from ps:t. pe has elves and dwarves and classes and many of the "tropes" chrisA wanted to avoid in ps:t. obsidian has learned that you can still make a smarty game when you give folks the trivial stuff they want. make a hero story and focus on protagonist not mean you gotta do in the traditional way, and it not mean you gotta be boring. so give folks what they want... but different and better. oh, and we had to look up "berserk." ... no. just, no. HA! Good Fun!

http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.html is a good read. *shrug* in any event, cursed by god is little different than chosen. is just a different kinda special. regardless, every crpg made since internet has been 'round has seen some number o' people reject the notion o' special protagonist. heck, various developers (including obsidian) has claimed to makes non-special protagonists. am doubting you ever get what you want. there is industry-wide recognized expectations of the Average Gamer, and that includes wish fulfillment. oh, and we as gonna just complete ignore anything you said once you started talking alignment... 'cause alignment is stoopid. HA! Good Fun!

Disagree. If all paths result in the same reward, then the best path becomes the fastest path. really? fastest is best? ... clearly we has been playing these games all wrong. HA! Good Fun!

is some likely unnecessary overlap with barbarians... 'less you add stoopid stuff like spells and pets. first rangers were American colonials who were combining english and native american styles o' warfare. now, keeps in mind that Gromnir is understandably resistant to using the "barbarian" term for indians (our cousins tell us that "indian" is pc again,) but it is pretty much spot-on as far as general gaming labels is concerned. so, rangers = folks who use barbarian warfare skills. hmmm. ideally we would have rangers resemble hawkeye, uncas and chingachgook more than drizz'le, but how does one distinguish from barbarian class? give guns? am thinking guns is too small a difference in and of themselves. ... is just one reason we loathe class bloat. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure what a fraction is in the present context, but it sounds like something we would enjoy. got our vote for more influential fractions in pe. am calling dibs on 10/6... big lewis carroll fan. HA! Good Fun!

the 3.0 ranger were a steamy pile, but monte cook variant, 3.5, and pathfinder versions were all quite satisfactory. in point o' fact, we were most likely to be playing a ranger with some rogue levels thrown into the mix... when we weren't playing clerics. got a particular fondness for priest characters, but a butt-kicking combatant with ridiculous skill points = win. HA! Good Fun!

funny more than cool. http://www.spike.com/video-clips/gytf2i/land-shark HA! Good Fun!

btw, you can try this for fun if you is ridiculous bored. takes a 3rd level bg1 fighter with all 8 stats and put him in all best gear and give best items. now create an 8th level bg1 fighter (max level with totsc installed) with statistically standard rolls and all mundane gear. unless you is purposefully trying to get the level 3 fighter killed, he will win every single time in a mano y mano battle. 'course, these kinda things not happen in ie games, which is why creating such scenarios is pointless. that being said, gear is overwhelmingly determinate in the ie games. do not use ie games as a goal. HA! Good Fun!

A 1st level character with all that gear will still get his ass kicked by a higher level character without that kind of gear, though. an eventuality that would be unlikely to occur organically in any ie game, so is hardly worthy of notice. the thing is, your relative efficacy in the ie games had far more to do with gear than abilities. once 3.0 were released, things changed for d&d games... a bit. character builds actually became meaningful with the release of 3.0 version of d&d, but gear were still having overwhelming impact. regardless, ie games is Not what we is wanting to use as some kinda developer goal for gear impact. "So your counter example is a character with uniform stats of 8, with one that managed to get every best piece of gear in the game? And by the way, that equipment's true functionality is heavily affected by character specific stats like THAC0, # of attacks, hp's, saving throws, etc that are heavily character derived." *chuckle* not need the best loot in game... which, btw, virtual everybody ended up with anyway. point is that the lowly halfling with craptacular stats is gonna be pretty much as effective as the heroic builds... 'cause in the ie games, your base stats didn't really matter. it were gear that mattered. HA! Good Fun!

... ie games did a good job? take a halfling with all stats being 8. in bg2, give him red dragon armour,helm of constitution, hammer o' t-bolts... whatever else. see, by mid levels, starting stats in ad&d and d&d becomes almost negligible... character actual abilities not matter. is all 'bout gear. so, while we agree with initial premise that the clothes should not make the man, the ie games were hardly the example we would be wanting to use. HA! Good Fun!

werewolves and vampires is not our favorite monsters... even before anne rice ruined vampires. god or God curses some schmuck by turning him into a monster that then runs amok midst said god's faithful? wth? HA! Good Fun!

The way I see it, that is only valid if one looks at a walkthrough or is playing the game for the nth time. There should be no external indicator that says "This options give more rewards!" for every choice in the game. The point is you don't know what choice is more rewarding, just like the character you're roleplaying doesn't. You can use logic to try and figure it out, but you usually won't have absolute certainty without external information. If all paths give the same reward, doesn't that make it even harder to roleplay? Should a mage casting invisibility on the party, then walking past all of the enemies, grant as much objective reward in terms of skill to the party compared to if the whole party employs strategies together and fights their way through? Edit for clarification; this wasn't rhetoric, I don't know the answers. should different styles of play grant same experience rewards? and that ain't rhetorical? ... answer: yes. doesn't take much power o' observation for the average gamer to be recognizing that killing stuff in Game X gets you more exp than does sneaking and opening locks. likewise, a gamer that is seeing that he don't get any benefit from killing every goblin and snark he comes across in Game Y will begin to avoid such ridiculous behaviour in favor of saving ammo and healing potions. knowing that there ain't a best build means people actually play what seems kewl rather than what seems most efficacious. different people will have many different notions o' kewl 'cause that is subjective. most powerful build is largely objective... only a handful o' most powerful builds. furthermore. gamers will attempt to game the game... they will look for an advantage. is natural. point of a game is to win, right? 'course, these games is designed to be beatable. impulse to try and win is unnecessary and often leads to counter-intuitive frustration. successful building a world-beater character means game is easier than it otherwise would be, and a game that is too easy is boring. HA! Good Fun!

am kinda sad that josh hasn't responded direct-- he has in the past. in point o' fact, josh has had some scathing replies to folks arguing for action based xp awards (e.g. killing an orc or unlocking a chest) as opposed to quest-based xp awards. maybe he is getting more diplomatic as he ages. regardless, after 20+ pages o' debate we has yet to see an alternative to quest xp that is 1) as simple/straightforward to implement and 2) provides equally balanced xp rewards regardless of gameplay style. some o' you not care 'bout balance, but obsidian has made it clear in the quoted material included at the start of this thread that that they does care. so, come up with a more elegant xp model that results in equal balance. HA! Good Fun!

after ps:t, the black isle folks were always quick to reassure potential customers that game X wouldn't have as much dialogue as ps:t. much dialogue not necessarily = better game. black isle developers learned their lesson. heck, even Shakespeare didn't brutalize his audience with long dialogue blocks strung one after the other-- soliloquies were rare. but we were talking 'bout reactivity and not... prolixity. HA! Good Fun!

dear lord, anything but that. HA! Good Fun!