Gromnir

Funny you should mention that, because apparently, Dragon Age will have "plays". I believe Dr. Z brought it up during a video interview, which brought back some memories of a seemingly endless discussion of it years ago on the Bio forums. hmmm. thanks for the info. having been booted from bio we hadn't heard such news... so thanks. is one o' those ideas we (and others) repeated ad nauseum and only got very minor positive response from developers. am genuine surprised they decided to implement. 'specially since there only seemed to be a handful o' genuine boardies who were really in favor o' the idea. 'course now that Gromnir gots positive/negative reinforcement, am gonna be as relentless with obsidian... or not. will be very curious to see how the concept gots implemented. HA! Good Fun! ps if called plays suck, am gonna claim that we got idea from leferd.

obsidian hotkeys everything else, am not sure why we can't gets some menu/hotkey options for basic jnpc commands. even so, we once again put forth notion of called plays... 'cause no matter how smarty the jnpc ai, it is gonna seem stoopid eventually if their behavior not take other party member behavior into account. in absence o' some kinda effective group-think ai we suggests the "play": 1 command to makes multiple members take pre-determined & sychronized actions. adds whole new level o' tactical sophistication... 'special if it were a customizable feature. HA! Good Fun!

toee were a ridiculously busted game that almost laughably gets categorized as a rpg. nevertheless, with some minor quibbles regarding inexplicable rules implementation, Gromnir thoroughly enjoyed toee turn-based combat. is too bad that troika screwed everything else during and after development o' toee or we might have seen more such games with similar combat. the game industry is disappointingly (but understandably) unimaginative, and if toee had been a success we woulda' seen clones of it. nwn and the fallouts were prime examples o' how terrible bad party ai can be. if it gets to a point whereby you is more likely to be successful in combat soloing as 'posed to using party mates, then something is clearly wrong. ... am understanding that some persons do not like to micromanage, and sadly, 'cause o' seeming limitations o' engine, ai cannot be simply turned off for those who prefer micromanage. finding some happy medium is difficult, and quite possibly doomed. 3 general categories o' ai consternation for Gromnir seems to keeps showing up in games such as nwn2. 1) area effect spells as has been mentioned earlier, area effect spells seems to be a problem for ai. soz will start at low levels, so Gromnir will be able to simply avoid having our customized pcs choose stuff like web or fireball. there is enough alternatives to such spells that we not feel too bad 'bout skipping. even so, it is disappointing that such useful spells is often the bane of our own party. hopeful the non-customizable jnpcs will be available at low enough levels so that we can effective control their spell lists as well. regardless, it is somewhat disappointing that how 'bout an auto-pause function? if a party spellcaster is about to cast an area effect spell, have possible possible to set game to auto-pause so player can somehow disrupt or alter target area. if player uninterested in micromanage not wanna be bothered, then they simply not have to check that particular auto-pause function. ideally we would rather be able to tailor the list o' area effect spells that would initiate a pause, but broad and general is probably easier to implement. 2) idiotic use o' spells am recalling nwn2 and grobnar's repeated attempts to use charm and mind affecting spells on undead. huh? have some jnpc cast a fire related offensive spell at a fire elemental or repeatedly tries to put undead to sleep never fails to drive us nutty... or nuttier. dunno, but this kinda problem seems to be simply a matter o' lack o' developer diligence. would take considerable 'mount o' time on the part of developers to script reasonable spell use... time the developers feel is better spent on other features. we got no elegant solution to this particular gordian knot. 3) "what is he doing over there?" most o' our problems with jnpc ai is simply a matter o' their choice o' pathfinding or targets. pathfinding has always been a problem with crpgs. cannot recall a single party-based crpg that did not inspire pathfinding concerns. pathfinding issues is multiplied if Gromnir cannot micromanage and fix as soon as we see jnpc alpha taking the most circuitous route possible to reach a target... managing to set off traps along the way, as well as attracting new opponents to the current battle. other than the weird pathfinding stuff is the suicide charge problems. melee jnpcs do not pick targets in a reasonable manner. our party breaks down into a charlie fox scenario far too quickly for our tastes. ... the reason why Gromnir has suggested the notion o' "plays" analogous to called plays in sports, is 'cause ai of particular party members, even if it seems logical to programmer, fails to recognize that the party member character is part o' a group. the behavior of 4 different characters with completely reasonable ai will eventually becomes baffling to a player 'cause o' fact that such ai ignores the fact that in a party-based game, teamwork is necessary. need a Group ai to really be effective. *shrug* realizing that party members with individual ai scripts is always gonna eventually do stuff counter to benefit o' the party, Gromnir would likes to see a more streamlined and simple manner to gets jnpcs to move to point A or point B, or to attack target A or Target B. got all kinda hotkeys for spells n' such, but we would get more use out o' a hotkey menu for directing jnpcs. haven't paid too much attention to this thread, so don't know if we is repeating suggestions already made. if so, ignore or accept as additional support. HA! Good Fun!

friendly fire is a pain in the arse... and there is no question that general party ai is stoopid. no matter what mod we has seen utilized, party is still stoopid. everybody plays different, so your "stoopid" is gonna be different than Gromnir's "stoopid." might be possible to makes a script that works well for kiss, but is unlikely it would be working well for Gromnir. most o' the friendly fire issues... weren't. am recalling that could turn off jnpc use of area effect spells. problem solved for most part... though we did run into this recurring problem in nwn2 and motb that had jnpcs turn hostile on each other if caught in an area of spell effect... even if spell were beneficial. *chuckle* paladin from nwn2 and cleric from motb were the most likely to go berserk... so maybe it were a 'haha' by developers commenting on religious types... or not. Gromnir prefers full micro-manage. that ain't gonna happen in soz, so am hopeful that we have some small menu o' easily accessed, basic, and useful commands that allows us to override ai... commands that actually work and genuine is useful in combat situations. HA! Good Fun!

am s'posing you thinks we read your post. not gonna happen. too much silliness. too much reply/quote. and mods asked for an end. "A distant relative of Yuan-ti allright. Not a fan of lizard men, but gnomes? I'll happily buy and use a scroll of gnomicide... Little pests. Why couldn't that suit of evil armour in BG2 be made out of Jan Jansens skin? bat.gif " am not quite sure what is so attractive 'bout the evil lizard/serpent person bit that it gets reused over and over in virtual all kinda media. bioware took their stab with nwn. obsidian has a done a few times. can't we have fluffy-bunny people... but evil? hmm. guess that has been done too. "night of the lepus" or somesuch. as for gnomes... now that 4e has made 'em monsters instead o' a playable race, you can kill 'em for their 10075 w/o remorse. HA! Good Fun!

I thought we just learnt that it will have a sucky end boss battle?!? But yeah, looks like that discussion has come full circle. Time to change the subject, please gentlemen? ... Besides, I hate the very concept of "boss fights". what if it were a boss battle fight with sleestaks and gnomes? maybe a gnome-sleestak ubg? HA! Good Fun!

am gonna assume you ain't being willful obtuse. "sorry, but you is the guy missing the point. akachi were the final obstacle/villain/antagonist... and it were nothing but an afterthought. you seem to be getting hung up on the label. by the very nature o' this being a game, there is gonna be a final conflict that involves combat, and if you ain't emotionally invested, your victory will be hollow. call villain or antagonist or obstacle not matter." "there were a final battle in motb. is not ideal for storytelling, but is part of the crpg formula... we get that. you fights a big bad at the end. call it villain or antagonist or whatever... if such an entity is going to be the ultimate obstacle in the game/story, you better make player care." "if the ultimate battle feels like an afterthought or simply a final exercise that must be endured rather than enjoyed, then writers did not effective build up the ultimate bad guy/obstacle... and no, an ultimate bad guy is not necessarily a bad guy. sympathetic villains and their like populate literature with some frequency. nevertheless, there will be an ultimate conflict, and the ultimate conflict better be something the player feels connected to... failure to make that connection is why obsidian ubgs keeps failing, and why their Climax almost invariably feels anti-climactic." rinse and repeat... so how many times did Gromnir clarify that end conflict not have to be a villain per se? "Yes, obviously, if there is a BIG BOSS BATTLE, it will be a climax. The actual combat with the Faceless Man and that entire scenario could have been done better. I've never denied that. But I think there's a pretty strong consensus that Akachi was a pretty interesting character. And I never said that some people didn't find him interesting, just that people who thought that were in a minority. There are a lot of other things that seem more prominent among players' complaints, including their disappointment in not getting to face off against Kelemvor. To each his own. But this all started because you went on a rant that every game needs an awesome villain, which I have disputed." am not even sure where to start... 'cause you clearly got yourself all tied in knots. am gonna disagree that there is a "strong consensus " that the climax, involving the ultimate confrontation with the akachi shadow thing, were fulfilling. in the abstract akachi may have been intriguing, but that not matter if player don't actually care. cernd, a bg2 npc, were intriguing, but the way his quest played out, and the crappy addition he made to party meant that Nobody gave a damn. the motb final conflict were, as with most obsidian games, anti-climactic... and consensus we see at the bio boards were that the climax of motb were maybe better than nwn2, but still unfullfilling. as Gromnir has stated 'bout a dozen times now, obsidian has a problem with their game climax. and, as it is very apparent that the climax o' the next expansion will follow same boss battle climax format as every previous obsidian game, they better find a way to get players emotionally involved with the central figures o' that climax. "Now you suddenly claim you agreed with me all along that it's not necessarily important to have a huge important battle with a huge important supervillain, but nowhere do I see your acknowledgement of my repeated claims to that effect." nope. you has simply not been paying attention. heck. at this point Gromnir ain't really sure what your point is as you ain't making one other than reply/quoting everything. Gromnir keeps trying to summarize and re-explain, but you go off on a different tangent each and every time. "I don't deny that there were probably a lot of people who didn't like The Transcendent One, but would you say they are in the majority? Regardless, I'll simply say that I don't agree with them." great. you don't have to agree. if a majority of people who played didn't care enough to get to end or didn't care 'bout transcendent one after finished, then that is revealing that transcendent one were a weak addition to the cast. for all ps:t strengths, the transcendent one, and more importantly, the final conflict at climax o' the game with the transcendent one, were not strengths commented on by players. HA! Good Fun! ps have never heard halo as being described as truly story driven. just as diablo had narrative, it were not really story driven.

Again, as you have done so many times over the years when I express gaming preferences with which you disagree, you drag out discussions from 9-10 years ago, talk about me as if I'm the deaf little pet sitting in the corner of the room, and proceed to explain to the forum why everything I think and say should effectively be dismissed. This time I wasn't in the mood to smile and take it. I've never been discourteous to you, Gromnir. Just the opposite. I am not "too sensitive". I'm pissed off by your rudeness and deliberate effort to dismiss me and my opinions as unimportant. I don't deserve this, not from you. okie dokie. clearly you saw something in our post that we didn't put into it. lord knows we didn't tell anybody to ignore you. specifically we said that there were nothing wrong with your type o' gameplay... is no less valid than is mc's or Gromnir's. simply recognized that Balance & Challenge arguments are not going to budge you... and yeah, 10 years of posting on same subject has made that obvious to Gromnir and anybody else that were paying attention. didn't fabricate untruths and specifically said that your approach were valid, but you see as dismissive. fine. screw it. normally Gromnir would apologize and move on, but if you wanna handle this way, so be it.

"Returning to the idea that the PC is partly Akachi and Akachi is partly the PC, how did Akachi reflect anything about me the PC? "Not only was Akachi a spectacularly dull as a cipher, but he was spectacularly dull as a mirror too. " is disturbing to have to agree with newc, but there it is. akachi were... dull. clearly akachi had parallels to the whole transcendent one shtick from ps:t, but akachi were even less compelling 'cause in spite of development o' story, it were all impersonal. as noted already, Gromnir couldn't think of name... kept referring to as "shadow fragment of self" and other such fuzzy descriptors. suggestion: abstract villains work okie dokie... if they remain abstract. sauron not seem so spooky if we find out that he gots halatosis and daddy issues. akachi were some kinda crappy quasi-abstract obstacle. myrkul were maybe the baddie, but got rid of him at 2/3 mark... so then what we got left? as noted already by numerous folks, akachi weren't really a villain, but he were the guy you battle at the Climax of game and Climax o' story. as such, developers should make so that player gives a damn. Gromnir didn't, and neither did many others. had nothing to do with game engines or obsidian stretching boundaries o' the crpg genre. obsidian folks simply did not create requisite emotional involvement. is bad writing... so do better. HA! Good Fun!

"You keep saying that every game needs to end in combat." actually, we has said the opposite a few times now, but if you cannot even get that far... is getting pointless if you cannot get that much. Gromnir has noted that every CRPG that has combat in game will end with potential for a boss battle. Gromnir has noted that nwn2 exp 2 will almost definitely have such a battle. you yourself seem stuck on ps:t, but even so, that leaves a whole stack o' games by obsidian with unfulfilling CLIMAXES ( final boss battle will be the climax, whether obsidian likes or not... 'cause you not seems to get that there is a connection 'tween two... which seems to maybe be a problem obsidian gots as well.) so the issue is how will obsidian improve climax of nwn2 exp 2? you seems to thinks that motb had a great climax, but clearly that ain't a unanimous pov as can be seen simply from this thread. if you claims you ain't never seen disgruntled fan postings 'bout motb ending as you seem to have missed similar concerns 'bout ps:t, then we is at an impasse... *shrug* "And, again, I've never heard substantial criticism about the ending of Torment," then you didn't pay attention to ip boards after ps:t were released. people who talk 'bout ps:t today, so many years removed from release, are generally the fans. the people who disliked or dismissed ps:t, stopped discussing the game a long time ago. nevertheless, as sales were pretty sucky, it should be obvious to even the most diehard ps:t fan, that there were many people who didn't like ps:t. bugginess. crap combat. unlikable protagonist. game started to suck after curst. no elves or dwarves. etc. were all kinds o' reasons given why people disliked ps:t. anti-climactic climax and general suckiness of fortress of regrets were not infrequent complaints. your lack o' perspective is not Gromnir's fault. "Now you're just deflecting. Sure I expect a boss battle. And it will be much better if we are connected to the conflict. And it is indeed the conflict itself which we need to be connected to much more than we need to be connected to the villain." Gromnir is deflecting? *chuckle* you completely derailed and has lost sight o' thread. original complaint were that obsidian ubg of past few games has been pretty forgettable. noted multiple times that a ubg = final obstacle, and not necessarily need be a bad guy. Gromnir then pointed out that if obsidian cannot get players/audience to feel emotionally involved in Climax, then climax will feel hollow. you has simply been reply/quoting self into insensibility since then. finally has got you almost back to square one where you recognize that nwn2 exp 2 will have, as all previous obsidian/bis games, a boss battle that is integral to Climax. all your nonsense 'bout games not needing such a climactic battle is therefore, pointless in the present context. ... am giving up... is just too much work keeping this on-track. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* our lack o' playing shooter games somehow is now worthy o' criticism? wow , getting desperate. never have heard splinter cell or halo lauded for great story and writing... is lots o' meaningful dialogue in those games? perhaps you got some hidden point. play fable and bioshock and assassin's creed... pretty much every crpg and loads o' rts games... account for virtually nothing... since your shooters is "virtually everything." okie dokie. your reply/quote is again what confuses you... lose track o' the argument. is not "every game" having to end with an epic battle with boss battle and closure. your points not work with story driven crpgs so maybe you try to prove point with computer chess? madden football and pong and shooters is not the same as is story driven crpgs. is diablo a story driven game? hardly, but it has a satisfying climax. if there ain't no meaningful multitude o' plot threads leading to climax, then it not take much to tie up, now does it? this is all basic stuff though, and am not seeing why is so difficult to grasp. for chrissakes, even the obsidian developers gets this much. more than one has mentioned/acknowledged, that you can't have a game w/o engaging gameplay. you can has a game w/o story. nevertheless, if you is gonna make story-driven... *sigh* repeat again: "1 more time, (and hopeful 'fore you resort to reply/quote stuff again) obsidian ain't never once altered the conventions o' crpg with some grand new approach. just as every other crpg in existence, the obsidians has games with a Climax that is centered 'round a final boss battle. however, through ineptitude or ignorance, they fails to make so that story climaxes proportionally and contemporaneous with boss battle... resulting in a hollow experience. is poor design. obsidian approach ain't groundbreaking... is simply busted." obsidian follows the formula. you talking 'bout how obsidian not have to follow formula is meaningless as to whether obsidian has been successful in past. kotor2. nnw2. motb. and even ps:t has all been criticized 'cause endings were anti-climactic. otherwise good games diminshed by bad understanding o' writing structure... or simple incompetence. other bis/obsidain games? iwd2 doesn't get lauded as a good game, so can't use as an example, but it too failed to have a satisfying climax. how were a bust in every way, so bad end is hardly noteworthy. only game left is iwd? in any event, you wanna change the way in which a stroy driven crpg is made, then be our guest, but we bet that the next nwn2 expansion is gonna climax with a boss battle. wanna bet on that? no? 'course not. there WILL be a climactic battle in the expansion, and only real question remains is if obsidian will somehow makes audience/player feels emotionally involved in that climax... unlike virtual all of their previous games. try not to keep confusing self with reply/quote. HA! Good Fun!

"You are missing the point entirely. I'm not saying that Akachi was a memorable villain. He wasn't even a villain. And I would never expect The Transcendent One to be on a list of best game villains, but I would expect Torment to be on a list of best game endings or best writing." sorry, but you is the guy missing the point. akachi were the final obstacle/villain/antagonist... and it were nothing but an afterthought. you seem to be getting hung up on the label. by the very nature o' this being a game, there is gonna be a final conflict that involves combat, and if you ain't emotionally invested, your victory will be hollow. call villain or antagonist or obstacle not matter. and Gromnir already admitted that ps:t had great writing... but it also had terrible witting. you realize that a game can have both good and bad writing, right? even nwn had some fantastic stuff. charwood were pretty great writing and had intriguing characters, but game overall... were bland. ps:t, up until curst, is a great game. after that... sorry, bu the ending were hardly great, and the transcendent one were a weak antagonist. and your point 'bout me is further delusional. some... no, Many people did play me simply for combat and 1007. wanna see shephard get more powerful and get better 1007... better armour and weapons and such. once the well runs dry, many folks lose interest. diablo series were little more than 1007 and boss battles with virtually 0 story... but it were the game that resurrected the crpg, and it is probable the most popular crpg franchise. you is kidding self. terrible video game cliches? HA! is not necessarily video game cliches we is talking 'bout. sure, ''cause these IS games there is certain conventions that will be adhered to, but is not just 'bout crpg limitations. is simply bad writing on the part of the obsidian folks. gots background and introductions... followed by rise of conflict... then climax... and a return to normalcy. at most basic level you gots all of the above in any adventure story and 99% of movies and books. problem is that obsidian not seem to be able to keeps folks emotionally invested in the climax... which is BAD writing. btw, any halo reference is gonna be lost on Gromnir as we never played... am not a button masher... thanks very much. 1 more time, (and hopeful 'fore you resort to reply/quote stuff again) obsidian ain't never once altered the conventions o' crpg with some grand new approach. just as every other crpg in existence, the obsidians has games with a Climax that is centered 'round a final boss battle. however, through ineptitude or ignorance, they fails to make so that story climaxes proportionally and contemporaneous with boss battle... resulting in a hollow experience. is poor design. obsidian approach ain't groundbreaking... is simply busted. HA! Good Fun!

"low levels" is just level 1? second level the combat gap increases, and am not sure why assume a 14 for dex, but if that is so then the rogue is gonna have at least a 16... so you is back to lagging behind again. also with worst hps in game, you is spending most of your time hiding, 'cause a couple o' hits from a kobold (or one critical) and you is dead. 'course this is stuff that even josh has explained on these boards, and if you not believe him, you sure as heck ain't gonna believe Gromnir. HA! Good Fun!

you say that we is in minority on issues... but show us any of those ubiquitous crpg polls/ lists that rank bestest crpg villains or best final battle. ever see transcendent one or akachi make list? nope. as much as people liked ps:t, transcendent weren't a particularly memorable or liked villain, and akachi... not even makes for fodder on subject. "God forbid game designers try to transcend the platform and try to provide quality entertainment." well, they failed multiple times in the attempt. obsidian/bis has had problems with endings. you are clearly in the minority if you disagree. kptpr2 and nwn2 and even ps:t had complaints 'bout ambiguous or unfullfilling conclusions... and one main reason why is 'cause o' lack o' emotional investment in overcoming the ultimate obstacle. sadly, 'cause these is games, there must be a final battle. whether you realize or not, many people play crpgs simply for the 1007 cycle and the combat. story is often an afterthought. obsidian ain't gonna be so foolish as to complete exclude a large % of their target audience. transcend the platform? right. obsidian is making entertainment. that entertainment might reach level o' art, but they ain't gonna transcend nothing... not if it costs 'em sales. there will always be a final battle, and as we said already, it not have to be some snidely whiplash villain, but you better make folks Care 'bout the conflict. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking that Di were a bit too sensitive 'bout this. weren't really trying to be mean, but you has been pretty upfront in past 'bout how you will hike back to town to get every farthing and shilling from sale o' dropped items o' 1007... and you re-rolled quite a bit in the ie games. you hated that the developers "fixed" ranged weapons after bg1 and these is just a handful o' examples. as we has said dozens o' times in past, we don't get Di's pov, but your way o' playing is hardly inferior. if you enjoy playing as you do, and you get money's worth from games, then good for you. even so, you IS a munchkin in every sense o' the word, and you does try to maximize 1007 cycle. it not make you a bad person, and is not wrong that you enjoy playing as you do... but for folks to try and convince you o' the error o' your ways with a balance or challenge argument is doomed from start. whatever. HA! Good Fun!

"Are you telling me that they didn't do an excellent job in telling the story of Akachi, and the curse, and motivating you to free your soul, put Akachi to rest, and end the curse?" yes. until you mentioned "akachi" Gromnir couldn't 'member name. that alone is proof that we weren't really engaged by story. there were a final battle in motb. is not ideal for storytelling, but is part of the crpg formula... we get that. you fights a big bad at the end. call it villain or antagonist or whatever... if such an entity is going to be the ultimate obstacle in the game/story, you better make player care. the final battle with "Was The Transcendent One a big bad guy that you were supposed to get satisfaction out of killing in Torment?" no. that is one reason why it were a terrible villain. "As much as anyone may dislike Torment for whatever reason, can anyone say that it's poorly written?" YES. some parts o' torment were horribly written. sure, ravel were a fantastic character, but she were hardly representative of all. the tirias portion o' game were less than inspired storytelling, and virtually everything that happened in fortress o' regrets needed a serious do-over from writers. torment, as expected from a game cobbled together by a handful o' different writers also trying to makes a compelling game, were hit & miss. hit more often than miss, and thankfully the setting afforded chrisA to wallow in his typical self-indulgent navel gazing (such stuff seemed almost silly in kotor2, but worked in ps:t well enough,) but ps:t gives as many examples o' bad writing as it does of goodly writing. look, like it or not, you is gonna have ultimate battles in crpgs... 'cause they is games. if the ultimate battle feels like an afterthought or simply a final exercise that must be endured rather than enjoyed, then writers did not effective build up the ultimate bad guy/obstacle... and no, an ultimate bad guy is not necessarily a bad guy. sympathetic villains and their like populate literature with some frequency. nevertheless, there will be an ultimate conflict, and the ultimate conflict better be something the player feels connected to... failure to make that connection is why obsidian ubgs keeps failing, and why their Climax almost invariably feels anti-climactic. HA! Good Fun!

So, what you're really saying is that you prefer unlimited power so combat doesn't interrupt the next soppy romance / plot / cookie cutter NPC chatter cutscene? Di is, for better or worse, an unabashed 1007 greedy munchkin of the first water. she were one o' those re-roll fanatics with the infinity engine games... trying to get an Uber-Di character. she bemoaned the fact that bioware and bis nerfed ranged weapons following bg1, and she has admitted that the will take a dozen trips to town to sell of dropped armour n' such... to maximize her ph47 10075. doesn't make her a bad person or nothing, but Di is pretty much immune to any "balance" or "challenge" argument. HA! Good Fun!

1) pnp does not allow sleep-at-will likes some crpgs. perhaps vol didn't realize that a one encounter pvp scenario is pretty pointless in evaluating how fun it is to play mages at low levels. after your mage casts his/her spell, he/she then gets to hide in corner and fire ineffectual crossbow shots for rest of day's adventure. yipee. 2) vol has never met logic give us a Convincing syllogism that explains why wotc would purge gnomes. whim? insanity? spite? a grudge against garden gnomes? as for current thread topic, am gonna make another suggestion: make a memorable villain. obsidian's last two nwn villains sucked something fierce. faceless shadow of self and the character-less king o' shadows were terrible examples o' crpg villaindom. if you gonna have some climactic battle with a UBG (ultimate bad guy) you better damn well give us a climax worthy o' a 20+ hour investment. climax shouldn't be solely 'bout winning some rigged battle that we gotta effectively beat multiple times to overcome (another cheesy developer trick that should be abandoned.) ... *start blunt mode* game developers seemingly waste all kinds o' effort trying to make player/audience identify with the protagonist, a necessarily ambiguous character, but far too often they complete forget that unless player has an emotional connection with the villain, success in overcoming the final/chief obstacle o' the game will be hollow. how long has you folks been making story driven games that you ain't yet figured out something so basic and fundamental to goodly storytelling? make villain sympathetic or terrifying or... whatever, but makes the audience feel something 'bout the villain, or defeat o' that villain will be ANTI-climactic. a villain in a crpg, unlike the protagonist, can be defined and concrete. is no excuse for skimping on character development of UBG. sadly, am gonna guess that obsidian failure in this regard is skills related as 'posed to ignorance. developers tried to build character o' King o' Shadows in nwn2 with the ghostly reminiscences in the mine portion of game and with the crystal dragon dialogues , but did anybody really give a damn 'bout the shadow schmuck? as for the motb "villain"... we liked better when it were called the Transcendent One, but not by much. transcendent were pretty lame as a final villain too. kreia, on the other hand... well, obsidian messed up an otherwise memorable villain by concluding kotor2 in such a forgettable manner. "wtf," should not be audience reaction as game ends and credits roll. maybe this is the game you finally gets villain right? *end blunt mode* am gonna be curious to see what obsidian has done to improve their handling o' the ubg. HA! Good Fun!

none of the changes to fr is any more stoopid than past changes... like death and subsequent resurrection of bane... or addition of spellfire. complain 'bout 4e changes? HA! besides which, that is 4e forgotten realms. as for 4e itself... "The fact that spells and magic have been altered to a point of ridiculous that they're baisclaly nothing more than mere special powers that ALL classes get." ... duh. that were kinda the point. spellcasters has always become more powerful as d&d levels increase. lame at low levels, but tough at high. melee classes, on the other hand, gets increasingly focused and specialized. virtually every 3.5e encounter at higher levels will see non spell casters doing exact same stuff every freaking combat encounter. boring. 4e fixes. now all classes gets powers increases that keeps character viable from level 1 on upwards to... whatever. you missed point. go figure. btw, hardly anybody played gnomes... and elves is popular. sadly, with increase focus on starting attribute scores in 4e, play all the elf archetypes with 1 race would be difficult. ranger and wizard? sorry, but needed two races. again, the change made sense... even if you not like. and again, hardly anybody played gnomes... surprised they survived until now as a playable race. and yeah, 4e 5 category alignment breakdown is silly, but from a game mechanics pov 4e is superior... 'cause while nomenclature is retarded, the role of alignment on gameplay is diminished. alignment from start, way back to 1e, were a mistake. only took 2+ decades to make some real progress. now try to say something 'bout obsidian game or you will get thread locked. suggestion: follow 4e lead and make gnomes monsters in nwn2ex2... all sleestak and gnomes. HA! Good Fun!

Nice response, witty intellengent and really addressing issues and getting your point across... *ahem* actually, this were one of vol's better posts. no "r00fles" or "lulz" and Gromnir were able to decipher vol intent. were the vol response insightful? nope. even so, we thinks that if vol keeps his posts to single word responses, the entrie obsidian board community would benefit... so try not to discourage the little guy. btw, am not a fan of all 4e changes, but in light of espoused goals, the changes made make sense. oh, and to keep on-topic... get rid of yuan-ti and replace with sleestak... 'cause retro is trendy again. HA! Good Fun!

zounds! D&D alignment was always illogical, but at least it was symmetrical. actually, is symmetrical if you use the REAL names for 4e alignments. please recall that 4e is for the new generation o' gamer. good... to the extreme! good unaligned evil evil... to the extreme! see? is perfect symmetry. most changes to 4e is actually pretty reasonable, but keeping alignment, 'specially in the current form, is just plain silly. HA! Good Fun!

is almost fixed... but is possibly even more silly and arbitrary. alignment as a game mechanic has been marginalized. however, the alignments is even more baffling 'cause o' need to embrace previous d&d edition nomenclature. lawful good good chaotic evil evil unaligned from what little we has seen of the 4e rules, there is far less o' the spell and powers related to alignments. detections of _______ and protections from ________, etc has been largely exorcised from 4e. nevertheless, d&d nerds seems unable to complete abandon basic alignment labels. the above 5 categories is the new alignments for 4e. why? dunno. HA! Good Fun!

have asked this question a few times. is our understanding that the camera is wonky if you play in the over-the-shoulder pov. as Gromnir almost invariably uses overhead/tactical, we never have noticed issues. HA! Good Fun!

am kinda ambivalent 'bout dinosaurs. our fascination with dinosaurs were based on fact that they were Real. monsters once roamed the earth. in a fantasy game in which we gots dragons and elves and stuff, dinosaurs is a bit less special... is just another non-magical creature... check the bab, ac, hps and damage per attack. triceratops is different than a rhino? large herbivores with a trample and gore attack... trike is simply bigger, so what is point? am a fan of dinosaurs, but in a fantasy game with dragons n' such, they seems almost mundane... which is a shame. HA! Good Fun!

Well actually, they are. At least in my campaign (Ghostwalk setting)... They make good enemies, being strong and intelligent, having natural access to psionics (depending on the rules you use) etc. would like to point out that the ghostwalk campaign produced one product. had some nice notions, (and some bad) and yuan-ti and orcus cults were key antagonists, but you & ghostwalk is proving our point... is not common. Alright, that's true, there's only the setting - but there's no need for more, because it serves as major inspiration for unexpected twists in the storyline (as does Heroes of Horror) and not as 1:1 base Still, the Y-T were one of the few races updated in the Expanded Psionics Handbook (which produced no further offspring either, unfortunate exception is that abomination called Complete Psionics), and they meant something to all the players in my group. Otoh, the may all have played BIS/Obs games... You see, I don't really have a point to defend here In my opinion, they are not overdone in the sense that they are not a usual sight in fantasy games, whereas elves, dwarves (however much attention they deserve), orcs, goblins, undead are much more frequent and, honestly, kind of boring in their "pure" fashion. Unless some twists are added to these races, they are the overdone friends and foes of fantasy games. I for one welcome their role (whatever it exactly will be) in SoZ. is nothing necessarily wrong with yuan-ti. obviously if samm likes 'em, that is more than enough reason to use 'em in a campaign run by samm. if the obsidian folks like yuan-ti that much, then they should use yuan-ti. personal, Gromnir ain't a huge sleestak fan. cold-blooded snake people? sure, they makes a pretty good long-term d&d foe. unlike sand's suggestion o' mindflayers, yuan-ti is not -posed to be alien and incomprehensible... hate that kinda thing. alien is cheap. is one reason why we avoids cthulu stuff is 'cause "alien" is such an annoying motivation. as noted above in a previous post, we can see many reasons to use the snakes people in a crpg, but they typically have a b-movie cheese factor to 'em. ooohhh! spooky snake people. ack. maybe Gromnir is simply offended by obvious. snakes=bad. natural primate fear o' snakes coupled with all the heavy religious stuff and the dorky freudian dream interp shtick... *shrug* Thoth-Amon and the Stygians o' Howard's works were probably the only snake/serpent focused fantasy stuff we has been able to appreciate... if only 'cause Thoth-Amon is one o' the kewler villains we has ever encountered. worst thing 'bout yuan-ti in an obsidian game is that we weren't real impressed with the way they got used in previous bis games. the side-jaunt to chult in iwd2 were kinda lame and felt almost tacked-on... and we weren't a fan o' dragon's eye portion o' iwd neither. if the yuan-ti stuff in previous works had been super-groovy, then maybe we would have more positive anticipation, but reverse is true. in other words, and to put it bluntly: do it better this time. HA! Good Fun!