Namutree

This. I wish I could give two likes.

Quite a few got adapted for consoles and still didn't do well.The genre is dying simply because the production values no longer make sense for a PC exclusive and singleplayer focused game. MOBAs sidestepped the problem by being made for multiplayer and microtransactions from the get-go. Halo Wars did well. Almost all RTS games are made with multiplayer in mind.

RTS's are supposed to be hectic and require speed. They still require plenty of strategy. I love pure strategy games (Romance of the three Kingdoms 8 for example), but the intense pace of a good RTS is simply wonderful.

It doesn't. That's the point. It was kickstarted and crowdfunded for it to not cather to everyone and their mom but to have a fixed target audience. If Obsidian dumbed the game down just for the sake of cathering to more people, broader audience, like is so popular now with big brands, then it would be the last time they saw my money. Poe is only supposed to be as difficult as BG2. Even if it were meant to be more challenging (which it isn't), having the trash mobs, special encounters, and bosses be tactically challenging is simply poor game design. It will be mentally draining and the game will feel repetitive since every battle will go on too long and the difficulty won't ever spike thus lacking variety. Not to mention a flat difficulty curve will make special battles less memorable. Remember that in the IE games the trash mobs died easily. It served the IE games well and poe would be wise to emulate them.

The game looks great. Definitely not silly. I also hope some one saves the Total War series.

My very first experience messing with game design was with the Starcraft editor making special game modes. My favorite remains my "Glorious Sunken Defence XY". It was an altered version of the "Sunken Defense XY" which I felt was too easy an could use a bit of spicing up. I always added the word Glorious to every unit's name for some reason.

It's a mainstream genre? It is in Korea.

On what Basis? Do you find it's single player lacking, or are they somehow structurally flawed?

Not all non-bosses qualify as trash mobs. As far as I know no one has suggested all non-bosses should be easy.

What is the three wise monkeys routine?

I was talkin' to Sensuki about RTS games in a different thread so I decided to move such types of conversation to a thread where said conversation is more appropriate. To get things going, here are a few statements people can respond to: 1: Total War series really went to crap after Empire came out. 2: Starcraft 2 is a good RTS, but pales compared to Starcraft: Brood War. 3: Halo Wars can be fun in small doses with friends who aren't serious RTS players. 4: Tzar: Burden of the Crown is a game not many people are aware of. I think it's neat. Any thoughts on any RTS is great; I just wanted to give some people statements to agree/disagree with. EDIT: I guess I'm still getting used to the Obsidian website. I put this in the wrong section. Silly me.

I agree. There was no need to defend your not counting Starcraft 2 position. I understood immediately. You know what? I'm gonna start an RTS thread in the Way-off topic section.

I'm an RTS player, but I just started checking out this thread now. I liked Halo Wars; it's kinda like the Mario Kart the RTS genre. Like Mario Kart it's simple and fun, but doesn't have nearly enough depth for serious players. It's fun in small doses with friends who are only casual gamers though. Anyway, I think the 6 second round system of the IE games was underrated. Sure it seemed kinda arbitrary, but it made things easier to keep track of.

Watchin' Zest vs. Soulkey in the GSL Code S. For those who know what I'm talking about; congrats for good taste.

It was an Obsidian game. It was a game based of a D&D rule set. IE games were based of a D&D rule set. Most CRPG's adaptations of D&D rule sets implemented skeletons in a consistent manner. It follows that discussing skeletons as they were implemented in NWN2 is similar enough to IE games for inclusion. In addition, you are working on the assumption that IE games are the only previous system that is usable as a comparison for the current game. So, your point is useless. As for 2, half damage is a big deal in my book with a mostly static hit/miss system. In PoE you have to take into account DR, grazes and so on, so it is not particularly surprising to see 1 point of damage. Even with non-crushing weapons, you are not doing all 1 point hits. It is perfect possible to clear the area without crushing weapons as well. EDIT - Also, apparently in 3ED, skeletons had a DR of 5 vs. non-blunt, which is huge. All of this is besides the point. The point is, beetles can be beaten with any weapon (didn't Sensuki do a 94 crit with a crossbow?); crushing weapons make this easier; this is one encounter in a limited beta that can be made easier with specific weapon selections. It does not follow that all encounters will require such micromanaging (if you call weapon selection that) to succeed on NORMAL. I never said that the enemies in poe could not be beaten without crushing weapons. My point is that the importance of using the right weapon against petty enemies was never this extreme in the IE games. In fact; I was playing BG1 just an hour ago. For my fighter who has 3 proficiency in swords to switch to a different weapon type would likely have been a mistake. The skeletons have a 50% resistance to my sword, but low health in general; so accuracy is more important than damage for my strong character. Situations like this don't look like they will be common in poe, but we do have a limited pool of enemies in the beta. We'll see how it turns out, but my impression is that poe puts at least 50% more focus on damage type resistances/weaknesses than any of the IE games. EDIT: I decided to focus on the main point.

How fun the game is doesn't affect whether or not it is a spiritual successor. That said, you certainly have the right attitude about the game. We should just have fun and forget it's association with the IE games. Doing so makes it a lot easier to accept the bigger changes.

Yes, one is a tactical choice, the other is a lifestyle! Anyways, I think we might be making too much of the intricate nature of combat. It is a new system STILL. We all talk about BG and how little thought could be put into so off the fights. What if, however, you think of the beetles as skeletons. Would you attack a mob of skeletons (wasn't there a low-level graveyard in NWN2? I forget. I am old) with your spears and pikes would you? Even if you had a long sword specialization, it is better to switch over your morning star and bash away. This encounter didn't foreshadow that every encounter required a dedicated weapon set, so we might take a deep breath and not assume that the beetles do either. 1: NWN2 isn't an IE game. 2: Whether or not it was a good idea to switch weapons depended on how specialized your pc was in that weapon type. I can't remember how much better crushing weapons were against skeletons exactly, but the difference between crushing weapons and others wasn't this extreme.

I've played BG about 12 times... I have never left Naskel mines through some other side. I didn't even know you could. I always left the way I came in. Well; I guess you learn something new every day.

I disagree. I don't think all the enemies need to be dangerous. As I have said before, exploration should not be so dangerous that even petty enemies like wolves are dangerous. The beetles aren't any more fun to fight than the wolves; they just take more time and effort to kill.

I was on the internet and debated with people. All in good fun.

Feminists are fat, lazy, hate men, and are lesbians. Oh, but don't worry. When I say "feminists" I am referring to a certain types of feminists, not the majority who don't fit into my narrative. Can you understand why I take offense BruceVC?

Interesting interview. EDIT: I would like to see more women designers and characters in video games. TFYC are helping in the most noble way possible, instead of complaining about the industry; they are doing something about it.

I see. Makes sense.

You seem like a smart fellow; care to enlighten us as to why southern Italy is so poor?

I'm sorry. EDIT: Just to make this post relevant to the thread. Scottish independence doesn't seem likely to me, but I'm no expert on the UK.