Namutree

It blatantly doesn't or else you wouldn't be campaigning for it's removal. It basically does. Sensuki's already released one video showing how it plays the same. He already said he'll release more. The crux of his argument isn't that engagement will ruin the game. It can be removed via modding after all, but rather getting it to work decent will require way too much work and resources. Especially since it doesn't really contribute much of anything to the game.

What is DOtA?

Don't the monks use wounds?

I really hope they can. I sure wish they'd give us an idea if this will be getting fixed. Well then you better hope that engagement gets cut. The existence of the mechanic actively disincentives OE from making the AI good. Engagement is so tactically restrictive that it makes the difference between good AI and bad AI basically moot. In many cases it would be stupid to go after the back row.

I think they should keep the shared health, but the Ranger needs: A) More health and stamina so the companion taking damage isn't so terrible. B) The animal companions need to be able to be return to their master. Kind of like a summon. The IE games did this (sort of) with their familiars. This will make it so they don't clutter up the screen and take up too much space. This will also allow you to get them out of danger when needed.

I really am wondering where the people are getting this idea that it's core game mechanic from. It's a minor feature that has been haphazardly thrown in. There's a reason why even this late into development it hasn't been fully implemented; because it wasn't considered important. It's the same reason why it can be removed easily by Sensuki and all the other mechanics still work fine. Because they aren't based on engagement.

I've never seen Blade Runner. I will now though. That scene was awesome. Then again Blade Runner I suspect is a very different universe than Starwars. I agree there is nothing wrong with anti-villains, but they don't belong in Starwars' silly universe.

The first part is true, but it isn't Hayden's fault. George wanted a sympathetic villain rather than a cool bad ass villain. Can't say I blame him since there are plenty on this board who think it was the right call, and want it to be continued into episode 7. Here is what I think will be a villain you guys will like: Give him that stupid sword and he's ready to go.

That was back when Lucas knew what he was going for.

The flaws are bad writing. Period. You also ignore that fact that settings grow and develop over time, as the writer and audience grows. Case in point, compare The Hobbit with LoTR. LOTR is better in every way. LOTR is a brilliant example! Both the Hobbit and LOTR are high fantasy stories with binary morality. If only the prequels had taken the same route as the LOTR. Tolken didn't take his world and go, "You know what? This story needs moral ambiguity and nuance; no more of this good vs evil nonsense; it's immature!" If he had done so the LOTR wouldn't have been nearly as good as it was. The story was expanded, but not contradicted (in any meaningful way). Smaug was evil. Sauron was evil. There was no attempt to make that universe something it could never be. Compare that to what the prequels did. They took a universe with binary morality, and made it morally gray. Which of course meant adding in stupid events to try and justify it. Stupid events means stupid dialog. I don't how anyone could have taken the idea of Anakin falling to the dark side, while keeping him sympathetic, and made it work well. It can't be done. This guy will never make a great Starwars villain: Star Wars can work in many ways, and those concepts are not "alien" or incompatible with SW. No, it can't. It's already established that there is a binary morality in the force. The force (good), and the dark side (evil). Not to mention that the Starwars universe is just plain silly in a lot areas. It's not a good template for an in depth and nuanced story. We got that with the prequels; look how that turned out.

The thing they most need to do is assure us that the mechanic will be fixed by launch. Just a simple post like, "Don't worry; we're already working on it. Hopefully the exploit will be fixed by the next update. If not by then, it'll be the update after that." A post of that nature would do much to help quell the anti-engagement crowd. Yet, they haven't said a peep about it. Maybe I'm paranoid, but that seems like a bad sign.

I always kept him swarmed with the wand of monster summoning.

Hilarious.

I've seen it. It's hilarious!

I responded to their arguments, and never backpedaled. I established that I liked Kotor 2 as a video game due to its mechanics, but I didn't like the story. Then you claim that since I liked the game that means I was wrong. I then re-established that I liked the game based on the game mechanics. I don't know how that could be backpedaling as it's more akin to repeating myself. If anything you ignored what I said. That's probably true. If they want to think that the ideas and tone of the prequels could have worked as well as if not better than the originals if only they were executed better; I doubt I can change their minds.

That's a good idea. I got another one! How about the Ranger gets a minor stat boost based on which companion he chooses? Like say... +4 Health/Stamina every 3 levels if he chooses the bear.

Maybe in very specific scenarios it could mean just barely surviving an attack that the Ranger would have otherwise been killed in.

It was mine! I think the Ranger needs more health; not more stamina, but more health. Maybe 2 more health per level?

Your words: "it's going to lead to some stupid events, dialog, and motivations." Events, dialog and motivations of characters are not something that is restricted to movies, so other media examples that includes them are just as valid. And as you said yourself K2 was good and the prequels were bad. So the implementation of moral ambiguity and nuance are bad goes out of the window and you confirmed. Not true. Thanks to being a video-game it has time to convey these concepts better than a movie can. Hence my line, "Different rules apply." What you also seemed to have missed is the part where I mentioned that the story was lackluster, as in; not good. The reason I still liked the game was for the mechanics and character choice.

KotOR 2? What of it? It contradicts everything you claimed about Star Wars above. Not to mention tons of comics, books etc. that made moral ambiguity and nuance work very well in SW universe. So your claims are not true. The expanded universe is both not cannon and mostly terrible. Not to mention they're not movies (mostly, but the expanded universe movies are horrible). As for Kotor 2: 1: It's a role-playing video game, not a movie; different rules apply. 2: Kotor 2 isn't really all that great. The mechanics were a blatant improvement over Kotor 1, but the story, characters, and atmosphere were very lackluster. It's a good game, but nothing special.

KotOR 2? What of it?

They were created with a specific tone and appeal in mind; both idea's were fully realized. Maybe what George Lucas thought was appealing wasn't what everyone found appealing, but the goal was clear. A high fantasy story that a ten year old would love; based on his childhood memories of Flash Gordon. I wonder who said that? Not me. Not all fantasy stories are set up the way Starwars is. Such concepts could work in fictional universe's that are made around them. Starwars wasn't. It's like some people have this ridiculous idea that depth and nuance are always good all the time in any story. Sound reasoning. Maybe they weren't **** simply because they were ****, but instead because the spirit of the prequels were incompatible with the established universe. Most of the glaring flaws are an extension of that fundamental flaw.

Yes they are; a lot. The republic isn't portrayed as good, but rather a corrupt and dysfunctional bureaucracy; this is featured prominently in episode 1. In episode 2: George left that Count Dooku was a villain deliberately unclear until very late in the movie. Something even he acknowledges in one of the deleted scenes where he states that he didn't want the audience to know if he was a bad guy or not yet. In episode 3: The opening text specifically state that their are "heroes on both sides, and evil is everywhere". Sounds like ambiguity to me. It also makes the audience uninterested in the given conflict; since there are no clear "heroes" to root for. George Lucas has stated previously that his greatest regret is how he made Darth Vader such a menacing villain in the original trilogy. He wanted Anakin to blatantly submit to evil; while still being sympathetic. That will lead to bad dialog, events, and motivations. The best writer ever been born, or who ever will be born; could not have made that premise work well.

I'm not saying that moral ambiguity and nuance are bad. They are bad for Starwars though. When you take an idea like make a guy who basically submits to the dark lord of the Sith to obtain the power of the dark side of the force, and try to play him off as sympathetic; it's going to lead to some stupid events, dialog, and motivations.

Isn't that Herman Cain?