JerekKruger

We only know that godlikes in the Vailian Republics are considered sexless and genderless, we don't know how they are treated in other regions of Eora.

Honestly? A small number of people would have bitched very loudly; the vast majority of players wouldn't have cared and might not even have noticed (assuming they didn't read the online bitching). In any case, if Obsidian had Skyrim's budget (approximately 10-20 times Deadfire's, back in 2007-2011) then things might be different. But they don't.

Or perhaps they'll combine idle animations with combat animations. Your Monk will still punch, punch, punch, spin kick as before, but he'll also smoke a pipe whilst doing it!

Simply adding a button to the UI that toggles between a walk and run animation (assuming there are walk animations for all party members) probably wouldn't take long. Checking all the possible interactions that button might have for bugs will take a lot longer.

Huh, I wonder why it's sabre in Pillars then. Considering that USA is a young country sabre might feel more "historic." Also Brits spelling are usually more fun. I simply would like much more Dishonored if it had "u". I don't know why. Dishonoured just looks more honourable to me. Yes but does it look more honorable

Huh, I wonder why it's sabre in Pillars then.

In British English yes, in American English (according to Wikipedia) it's spelled saber. However in Pillars of Eternity it was spelled sabre so I'm not sure I trust Wikipedia, not that it matters given I am a Brit.

Agreed. If Obsidian have the time then they should go for it, but outside of the character screen the staticity (is that a word?) of his hair will be almost imperceptible so it won't be a great loss if they don't.

Ten to twenty minutes to add the button. Then it goes to QA who discover that if you hit the button during combat it disables all attack and casting animations, or crashes the game, or whatever other bugs it might have associated with it. This takes significantly more than twenty minutes because QA have to be thorough to catch as many potential bugs as possible. Then it goes back to the coders who might take significantly longer than twenty minutes to fix those bugs, since they come as a result of the way the feature interacts with other parts of the code. This is what is known as a straw man. You argue against an argument that is, superficially, similar to my argument, but is not actually my argument. Specifically my objection to spending time adding a walk toggle rests on how few people will actually use it or care that it's there. I can assure you if Obsidian released a game with such animations a lot more than 10% of people would complain; in fact I imagine almost 100% of players would be very unhappy. Those are features I'd like to see in the game, so I am glad that Obsidian are including them. But if Obsidian had decided against including, say, idle animations to focus on something else then I wouldn't be that unhappy no.

Does it take literally no time to add a walk toggle to the game? No? Then it takes away time that could be spent on other features. It might not be a lot of time, but it's not no time.

It takes time away from other development activity. It might not be much time but it isn't no time. As long as there are features that could be included that are more popular than a walk toggle, Obsidian should focus their attention on those. Karkarov used the figure "less than 10%". He might correct me, but I imagine he was erring on the side of caution with that. I'd honestly be surprised if 1% of players would use a walk toggle throughout their playthroughs, with a slightly higher percentage starting out using it but giving up once they get frustrated at the slowness. Yes, it's an issue that generates discussion on this forum, but only a tiny fraction of people who backed Deadfire even post here and I don't think we're a representative sample. Now if there were unlimited resources available I'd be all for including a walk toggle, even though I'd never use it; but since resources are limited I'd prefer that Obsidian use their time on any number of other things.

Agreed. By all means make a great sword that looks like a kriegsmesser*, but we don't really need a new weapon class for it. If it's a unique weapon it could even have the Sharp property associated with it (+20% damage) and lose the Piercing as a damage type, but it should still be grouped under the Great Sword Proficiency. *In fact, if you're reading this Obsidian, do do that. Kriegsmessers look awesome!

I am fairly certain he is just laughing.

He is indeed. I suspect there is no one who has a better knowledge of the game mechanics than he does, and I include the developers in that statement.

Agreed!

What argument? I haven't argued in favour of a five person party cap. I am criticising your argument, not making my own. So what? Because Obsidian have decided, for whatever reason, that the game will be improved as a result. They might be wrong, but I'd rather let them do the game development that see the game be designed by internet committee. Yes they will. And? Again, I was criticising your argument in favour of six, not making an argument in favour of five. The fact that the same problems apply to both is not an argument in favour of either. They do so because they want a challenge, therefore the disadvantage they face by using a smaller party (in this case the minimum) is not seen as a bad thing by them. For anyone who prefers to use a smaller party for reasons other than challenge this disadvantage is a negative. Again, I am not saying this an argument in favour of one party size over another, I am pointing out that your argument that people can just restrict themselves to five person parties is flawed.

We get it Katarack, you hate DLC, did you really need to bring this thread back after a month of inactivity to tell us this again?

The only portraits I don't like are Eder's and Pallegina's, and having seen a larger version of Eder's I think I could get used to it (I agree with whoever said the eyes look small on the thumbnail but are better on the full sized version). I doubt I will like Pallegina's more in full size: there's something I just don't like about it. Not the end of the world if it doesn't get redone though, I can always change in her old one.

It was. I mean, it was horribly flawed, half the time I'd lose more travelling back to town after a dungeon than I gained during the dungeon itself, but it was great fun.

I loved Warhammer Quest!

This isn't a good argument for a cap of six on the party, since the same argument can be made for seven, or eight, or even twelve (eleven companions/sidekicks in the game). Moreover it ignores the fact that the game is balanced (however poorly) around the party cap: raise the cap to six then anyone who takes five will be at a disadvantage.

Chanters get a spell that summons three floating weapons, but Wizards don't get anything similar.

Music is the food of love of course. Just don't ask me to define love

Ah, a common mistake, that's not actual music, it's pseudo-music. It's close to music, sure, but it's not actual music.

It has a significantly longer handle than a great sword but yeah, it does look more like a sword than a pike/spear. It's one of the coolest looking weapons in the game, which combined with the fact that it's also one of the best weapons in the game is rather nice. It's just a shame Wizards never get level 5 spells as per encounter.