Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eurhetemec

  1. So if it was "black" not "a man", you'd think the limerick was totally okay?
  2. Try replacing the "because they were male" with "because they were black" (or white, or whatever). Then maybe you'll get it. Oh I get it. The joke is stupid regardless. Causing a lot of drama about it is almost as stupid. If you can't handle ignoring insensitivity, the adult world is going to get pretty rough. So why not allow racism? Or nastiness in general?
  3. Being repulsed by something =/ a fear of it. Unless you're actually afraid of cross dressers or folks who like to mutilate their genitalia and perhaps replace it with the genitalia of the opposite sex via surgery then you have no such phobia. Repulsion often leads to phobia, though, and particularly to very negative and unwarranted behaviour towards the person they irrationally find "repulsive". Repulsion is a natural instinct meant to keep us alive. we see dead stuff rotting, we are repulsed, because our reptilian conditioning knows that is a vector for disease and death. If you want to socialize that, sure, go crazy, but it's a totally different thing when you start talking about behavior and how people are treated. I don't mistreat transgender people, I am as polite and respectful to them as I am anyone, but I still want nothing to do with them at a visceral level. It's not bigotry, I understand what is going on, and I'm okay with it. Believe it or not, just because someone doesn't like you and doesn't want to be your best friend doesn't mean they can't respect you and give you the same fair treatment they give others. It's called being an adult and accepting diversity. A negative view is cast for many reasons and not all of them are a reflection of character or social grace. People who want to make these arguments in to black and white tolerance issues are the people I have no time for, no matter what gender they think they are. If someone is instinctively repulsed by you, then it's not an issue of "not wanting to be your best friend". Humans are animals. Smart ones, but animals. You are vastly more likely to harm someone who repulses you than someone who does not. Period. Further, many people rationalize their visceral repulsion/fear through religious morality, leading to a self-reinforcing circle of harm to the victims of the repulsion. If you don't, and don't vote against LGBT rights etc. - great - but a lot of people like you do. Thinking this limerick is fine when a similar one about race would not be is a good test, frankly.
  4. Try replacing the "because they were male" with "because they were black" (or white, or whatever). Then maybe you'll get it.
  5. Being repulsed by something =/ a fear of it. Unless you're actually afraid of cross dressers or folks who like to mutilate their genitalia and perhaps replace it with the genitalia of the opposite sex via surgery then you have no such phobia. Repulsion often leads to phobia, though, and particularly to very negative and unwarranted behaviour towards the person they irrationally find "repulsive". You make an unintelligent assumption that whatever is repulsive to the person is irrational. For the most part being repulsed by anything or anyone is a subjective thing, as is being attracted to someone or something. It's rarely a matter of being rational or irrational. Is the proverbial pig in **** irrational for loving being there, is your average human irrational for not wanting to be there? No, it's entirely subjective. Also, being repulsed by something/someone generally just leads to not wanting to be around it/them and that's about it, super rarely does it lead to a phobia (that would generally be irrational), or 'unwarranted behavior' (what's warranted or not is often subjective itself). I don't know what your first language is, guessing not English, and maybe you're mistranslating repulsion, but absolutely it is irrational. If it's rational, it's not repulsion. If you're rationalizing it after the fact, as a "survival instinct" or whatever, that's rationalizing, rather than actually being rational. The poster above you understands this.
  6. Being repulsed by something =/ a fear of it. Unless you're actually afraid of cross dressers or folks who like to mutilate their genitalia and perhaps replace it with the genitalia of the opposite sex via surgery then you have no such phobia. Repulsion often leads to phobia, though, and particularly to very negative and unwarranted behaviour towards the person they irrationally find "repulsive".
  7. The people "offended" by it being removed are adopting an anti-feminist, anti-LGBT political position (hence "free speech maaaaaaan!" even though it has nothing to do with the government), not a principled one, so, don't take them too seriously.
  8. This is a game, freedom of speech is irrelevant. When the US government bans this limerick, then it's relevant.
  9. Depends on how you define "memorable". Pillars characters talk like real-ish people, generally. BG1 characters talked like badly/over-the-top roleplayed characters from a particularly cheesy D&D game (good god the awful "I like/loathe character X!" stuff, it's cringeworthy). But because BG1 was a lot sillier, there was all the "Go for the eyes, Boo!" and so on.
  10. Pretty much exactly how I feel on this - I too would call Pillars a solid 9 or "A" grade game (ignoring the bugs as they will inevitably be fixed). I didn't like Baldur's Gate much when it came out, because I'd played Fallout 2 before it, which was vastly cleverer, less cliche, and better-written in just about every regard (I even have a semi-literate review I wrote from then, giving BG 6/10 for this reason). BG2, I'd say was 9/10, in part because it was so astonishingly long (even before the expansion) and went to so many unexpected-to-me places. Very excited for how good a Pillars sequel could be, for sure. Er, in the UK or US, that'll result in you being laughed out of there or ruthlessly mocked until you flee. Not being churlishly insulted, physically hurt, or having vengeance sworn against you. Bikers are mostly nice chaps until you REALLY piss them off.
  11. There certainly isn't any bad blood (why the heck would there be? These are grown-up professionals, not axe-grinding CRPG opinion-havers), and to be honest, they don't actually approach their games all that differently, if you look at Obsidian's general body of work, esp. pre-Kickstarter. Bioware have a lot more money, that's the main difference. Honestly, playing through Pillars, I could very easily see it as having been written by Bioware on a good day (for all the DA2 hate, there's a remarkable similarity in tone/style to it, though Pillars is a bit more edgy/rough, and DA2 a bit more charming/mannered).
  12. Hey Katarack, let's be fair, the earliest RPGs did not allow saving, and certainly not, god forbid, reloading saves of dead characters - i.e. those ones running on mainframes back in the 1970s (Moria etc.). That's another genre that's making a bit of a comeback, so maybe the OP assumed Pillars was one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike But yeah, somehow I suspect Iron Man as default would not have been a terribly popular decision.
  13. I think it would be good to know for sure from the devs whether this is a balancing decision. It absolutely could be, as you say. It's also worth noting that, as with party members, you can click the sword icon and force attacks on these "friendlies" (as I found out to my detriment when I accidentally ordered Eder to knock down Aloth!).
  14. Ah don't reload if you're switched to another weapon when standing around, eh? That explains a lot about why I'd been having problems with the pistols I recently acquired (I love how detailed the reload animation is - I was kind of surprised/impressed to seem my guy ramrod'ing the bullet in and everything!)
  15. Dirk, you're wrong. The economy is designed on the assumption of an unlimited stash. 'nuff said. Can you prove that? I don't think the devs would design the game under the assumption that every player will pick up everything not bolted down and sell it. That is as much of a waste of time as micro managing your inventory. That being said, if you can prove it, then you are right. I'll be honest - I can't prove it at this point, but it's a more valid assumption than your "They acted completely without thought!" one, I would suggest. The very low value of most items picked up commonly from enemies (normal weapons/armour) I think strongly supports my thesis - it's much, much lower than in any encumbrance-based game I can think of. We should probably ask them, though. I'll try and tweet them tonight.
  16. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There were no RPGs like Eternity from circa 2004 until now. Publishers weren't interested as they are interested in volume. I'm not blaming them, I'm simply saying they don't change. Admittedly, my experience is in books rather than games, but the Big Five are like bloated rabbits transfixed in the [digital] headlights, pumping out even more YA titles while the behemoth bears down on them. This argument makes no sense. You say they're against creativity, then bash them for not continuing to make games in what was once a well-established style/genre (isometric party-based RPG). I mean, man what? It seems more like what actually happened is that the "next generation" of these games - primarily BG3 and FO3, failed to happen, for complicated reasons, and NWN didn't spark imaginations as it might have, and this took the genre with it. I also kind of wonder if the massive revitalization of pen & paper D&D which happened with 3E helped drag people away. I would be MMORPGs were involved, too. I know people who were huge BG fans, who certainly turned into even bigger EQ fans. So yeah, pretty sure it's not "hatred of creativity" that killed this genre/style. Anyway, it's back now, and I doubt it's going anywhere.
  17. 3rd edition spells have casting times of one action or one round, excepting maybe a very few spells. Pre 3e spells have casting times of segments. One segment is 6 seconds. This allows for interrupting spells and kept magic users from being gods. In 3e, spells are almost never interrupted because you had to ready an action to do so and you were almost always better to take your normal actions. Don't call me crazy and blame it on house rules until you've actually read the rules. Which is...you know...*not* the same thing as "doing away with casting times". I exclusively play sorcs and various types of wizards in 3rd Edition. Tracking your casting time and manipulating your actions etc. is a very important part of that game--and as a caster you have to pay more attention to it than most. Again, I have read the rules. My PHB is open and in front of me right now. You were wrong. Rather than attack me, just admit that you were wrong and that part of your argument is invalid. Well, he's wrong and he's right, Katarack. LFQW is a thing, but it wasn't as big of a thing in 2E. I played 2E a lot, including at higher levels, and with optimizer-type players. LFQW in 2E didn't really come into effect until 12th+ Wizard and didn't break the game properly until you go various FR-specific or obscure spells into the mix. Of course BG with the expansion gets well into the 20+ range, where it is in effect, even in 2E. As mentioned by another poster, Spell Sequencers, Spell Triggers and Contingency, together with the ease of resting, are what make it ridiculous in BG2 (and similar) - and they didn't exist in a lot of 2E games. Whereas in 3E, as he says, spells basically never get interrupted (in practice), because the situations that can lead to an interrupt are so rare, and it's so easy (in terms of opportunity cost) to get a Concentration skill that is very high. Basically 3E (including 3.5E and PF) take all the brakes off the Wizard train and ride it straight to hell (whilst a Druid casting spells in bear form rides on top of the train bellowing mightily, and the Fighter has his arm around the Rogue who didn't put all his skill points in UMD, as they sit, weeping, at the station). But still in 3E it doesn't get bananas until around 10 (but by then it can be as much of a disparity as 16+ or even 20+ can be in 2E). However he's also right that Fighters used to be good damage dealers - his low-level 3E example is rubbish, but if you look at mid and high levels in 2E, they're actually ahead of Wizards in non-AE situations and were generally pretty great until 3E, where they fall steadily behind - in large part because they utterly nerfed multiple attacks in 3E - going from typically 2+ (often 3+) attacks per round at high levels at full value, to an iterative system where each attack was less likely to hit. Either way, it's not been as consistent as either of you are saying. It's always gone back and forth a bit, and D&D is hardly the only FRPG on the market.
  18. There are three things I'd like you to explain here: 1) You didn't like 2E, but you don't like this. That begs the question, what do you like? Also note that most of the complaints in this thread are "It isn't like BG, rules-wise", which is to say "It isn't like very late 2E AD&D". That is literally the case. 2) Why, exactly, are you calling this system a "homebrew"? This is a system developed, tested, modified and much-changed by professional game designers with CRPG and P&P RPG experience, and is not based on their home systems (AFAIK). Thus I can see no basis for calling a "homebrew". So why are you? Do you just not understand what it means, and mistakenly think it means any novel system? It doesn't - it strictly applies to hacked-together systems made by non-professionals. I mean, if this system is a "homebrew", then John Williams is an "amateur composer". 3) How was HAL not the DM in BG1/2? They were also "You need to do it this way, Dave", and the BG2 expansion was even more like that. As for arrogance, well, perhaps But there's plenty to go around if you're comparing Obsidian to some random teenage DM, and the other guy was claiming they were unaware of a discussion that's been big throughout P&P and CRPGs. Honest question, because I'm struggling here - can you think of an RPG that handles prebuffing well? CRPG or P&P? Because I am wracking my brain and I can't, really. Pathfinder, for example, is even worse than 3E, which was worse than 2E. I mean, 3.5E cut down the durations of buffs, and PF changed some of them up a bit, but in practice it just mean "Buff, Nuke, Rest" was even more effective.
  19. I think in a lot of cases, knowledge turned out to be too much power. Encounters could go from impossible to trivial with the right spells (the Demi Lich, for example). So tactics mostly amounted to figuring out how to shut down the enemy mages and letting your fighters beat the crap out of everything. A lot of the rest was about exploiting AI weaknesses. For example, efficiently combating Timestop was a matter of summoning a level 1 monster to be the closest ally to the enemy caster at the start of battle. Indeed, this is the great failing of higher-level 2E and 3E D&D - battles can be determined entirely by pre-buffing and spell preparation, and the higher level you get, the more they are (and the more irrelevant non-casters are, especially in 3E). It's not a good model for a CRPG, frankly, especially in this day and age when most of Pillars' players will not be D&D veterans. So what Obsidian did was very smart, frankly.
  20. No, reducing overall damage output actually makes the game both easier and less tactical. The reason you don't think so is because your playstyle is reactive when it should be proactive. With low damage-per-hit ratio it's easy to react to problems. "Oh, my wizard is taking hits - I should bring my fighter close to protect him!" You may think this is an example of tactical thinking, and you're right - but it's only the lowest form of tactical thinking. High damage-per-hit ratio means you have to manage the conditions in your favour so that you stop those problems before they ever happen. If your wizard can only take one or two hits, then you should do something to prevent them from getting hit in the first place, and this requires that you understand the flow of battle and the multiple ways things can go wrong and make some contingency plans. This requires a noticeably higher level of tactical planning than just reacting to immediate threats. If you see high damage-per-hit combat as just frantically dealing lots of damage as fast as possible, that just reveals you're not thinking about it at a high enough level. This is totally true BUT do note that at a certain point of "high damage" with reliable ranged weapons and spells in the mix, tactics more or less devolve into "ambush or die" (Pillars does not reach this point on any setting).
  21. Agreed completely - disengagement is a great mechanic but needs to be more conditional (i.e. not whilst you're busy!) and a little more obvious (we could also use some more disengagement move options - 1/encounter-type stuff for most classes).
  22. Dirk, you're wrong. The economy is designed on the assumption of an unlimited stash. 'nuff said.
  23. What a lot of arrogant nonsense. You think JE Sawyer doesn't understand that some people like that kind of thing? I assure you, he does. I've read his posts and thoughts on the internet for the past decade or more, and he's very well aware that some people love highly exploitable games that reward cheesy munchkin-type behaviour. The thing is, there aren't that many people like that. They're a small minority of the people who buy games, even games like Pillars of Eternity. So he does understand, and you need to understand that he understands, understand? He's chosen to design away from that for the very simple reason that it provides a game that more people enjoy, and that is much easier to design and balance in a way such that everyone who buys it can actually play through it. As a very long time AD&D 2E DM and min-maxer, and DM to some appalling munchkins (luckily, they all grew out of it, what can I say, we were all teenagers!), I find your whole spiel about a "Phd in min-maxing" very silly. Min-maxing in 2E, finding exploits in 2E, abusing 2E, none of these things were hard, none of these things were challenging, and none of them required great intellect or imagination. A Phd? More like a particularly easy and short no-credits class. Also, you don't "wish it was better", you wish it was poorly balanced and full of exploits!
  24. It's like you were promised a juicy steak, char-grilled, medium rare. Then you bite into it and realise it's a cleverly-camouflaged nut cutlet. Nope, that's a rubbish analogy, because you were not promised a re-make of the BG games, nor that it would use rules that were in some way, and yet virtually every complaint, grouse, and moan in this thread (and there is a lot of moaning) boils down to "It's not exactly like it was in Baldur's Gate!" I mean, you disagree, go read the Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/description "Project Eternity aims to recapture the magic, imagination, depth, and nostalgia of classic RPG's that we enjoyed making - and playing. At Obsidian, we have the people responsible for many of those classic games and we want to bring those games back… and that’s why we’re here - we need your help to make it a reality!" "Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. Combat uses a tactical real-time with pause system - positioning your party and coordinating attacks and abilities is one of the keys to success. The world map is dotted with unique locations and wilderness ripe for exploration and questing. You’ll create your own character and collect companions along the way – taking him or her not just through this story, but, with your continued support, through future adventures. You will engage in dialogues that are deep, and offer many choices to determine the fate of you and your party. …and you'll experience a story that explores mature themes and presents you with complex, difficult choices to shape how your story plays out. We are excited at this chance to create something new, yet reminiscent of those great games and we want you to be a part of it as well." Are you claiming that any of that is untrue, inaccurate, or the like? Because I'll help you out - it isn't. Most pertinent is perhaps the last line, repeated here: "We are excited at this chance to create something new, yet reminiscent of those great games and we want you to be a part of it as well." Bolded to help you out. There's no question that Pillars of Eternity is, indeed, something new that is reminiscent of the IE games. It's closer to them than anything since them, is a superb game, and is it's own game. If you don't like that, BG3 is in development!: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2867837/15-years-later-a-new-baldurs-gate-game-is-finally-coming.html It'll probably be complete and utter twaddle compared to Pillars, but hey, at least the complaints you have here will be answered! Good luck with that!
  • Create New...