Aoslare

To me it reads less like "master/servant" and more like a pretty positive version of "knight/squire" or -- to take a reference more relevant to Tolkien -- "corporal/private." There's a layer of very unequal decision making, but it seems pretty separate from the way they treat each other as persons. The age difference (50 vs 38, with coming-of-age at 33) also seems relevant -- easy to imagine an organic power dynamic just from differences in real-world experience. Imagine a 21yo and a 28yo. You can read it as Sam being unfairly submissive -- but Sam seems to have pretty sharp instincts about who it is and isn't wise to defer to; Frodo never treats him poorly; and he has no problem acting on his own when forced to. The level of humility isn't for everyone, I guess, but in Tolkien's world at least the positive practical impact is clear -- both on those Sam helps, and on what he ultimately receives (less Ring-temptation than literally anyone else who encounters it in its whole history; and set of personal relationships back in the Shire that is both extensive and deep).

On top of Randomizer's point that this isn't a spoiler to begin with, it was also this way in Exile I, way back in 1994. I don't think you can really spoil something that's 29 years old...

The person is definitely sitting. It's extremely clear. You can see the side of the robe going horizontally across the seat and then dropping off where their knees are. There's nothing about this image that is specific to Alwan, and numerous things that conflict with his portrayal in G5. Yes, it's always possible the artist was inspired by something that final image bears no resemblance to. Yes, every discrepancy could be artistic license. There's simply nothing to suggest that happened here.

It's not Alwan. First off, let's look at the FULL image, not a cropped version: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/geneforge/images/a/a2/GF5splash.jpg https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/geneforge/images/a/a2/GF5splash.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20110223111244 That's not Alwan's support frame, that's a fancy throne. There are no shaped conduits going into the thighs or arm of the person sitting there. G5 clearly states Alwan has those. It also states: "He can never sit." G5 also has multiple pictures of Alwan in his support frame, and those differ from this chair in numerous ways, even just looking at the device itself. Many of the points raised above apply as well (attack timing, robes vs armor, the hand magic swirl sure looks like battle magic and not shaping, etc etc).

This thread hasn't been posted in in 7 years. MC Tugger, friendly mod request since this has come up a few times now. For ancient threads like these, it's OK to post in them if you have something new to add, but please let them remain inactive if it's just "me too" or "the links that were dead 7 years ago are still dead". Thanks! 🙂

I mean, see alhoon's post above, this is explicitly spelled out in said lore. Anyway, non-shapers do "have" essence, they just aren't typically trained in how to tap into it (and/or have inherent obstacles to doing so, in the case of most creation types).

Some spells literally do require essence, though.

Shaper magic does tend to use essence but I don't think it's ever stated (or suggested) that all magic does. Essence is pretty clearly its own thing.

Hi friend! Recognized you immediately from your custom title (#thanksdrakey). You didn't post all the time, but when you did, it was usually something thoughtful and insightful. You were definitely one of the (many) people who made this such a lovely place. Nice to see you here again, and hope you're doing well.

I ran an all-mage party on Torment in A2:CS and had none of the issues with the Garzahd fight that Randomizer is describing. I don't know why he experienced those. (Maybe you tried that during the beta, and Jeff made changes afterwards?) But this does seem to be an issue that nobody else ever brings up... No, there really aren't any cases where this is a thing in the way stated, i.e., impeding an all-one-type party, at least in the first two games. Resistances show up very little in the defs files, it's almost all just the automatic per-level resists, and where they do show up, it's exclusively stuff like fire lizards where they resist or block one magical element. That won't slow down a mage party at all. Please, point me to any enemy that has 95% resistance against all three primary magic attack types (magic, fire, and ice) but not to physical damage (and that isn't a "gimmick" enemy easily conquered in some other trivial way). There aren't any! 20% is the minimum hit change in A2:CS, not 5%. Mostly, no. The original trilogy has substantially different mechanics and game balance.

I emphatically disagree with the above, as far as all-mage parties in A:EFTP and A2:CS go. An all-mage party isn't a challenge party, it's an easy button. In theory everything Randomizer says makes intuitive sense, but the mechanics don't show up that way. The reality is that "extremely high resistance or armor" basically never comes up in a way would block a build entirely (i.e., either for physical damage, or for all magical elements -- since casters have access to all of them). Instead, the trilogy relies on blanket level-based resistance scaling that favors magic elements significantly by the end of the game. For that, among a number of other reasons, magic is incredibly strong. You can run an all-mage party and never look back, and the games will likely be easier than with a standard "1 of each" party. This is particularly true in A2:CS. (You can still have one mage who can hit accurately with Demonslayer for that area, or you can just ignore it and blast away. This issue is overstated and does not force use of a warrior.) A:EFTP is also easy with an all-mage party, though the theoretical "best" party there is probably 3 casters and 1 warrior. (The difference is due to a combination of factors, including some minor nerfs to dual wielding and the loss of certain OP weapons from the first game.)

That was lovely. Welcome back! Now, of course, you've gotten us all curious what we knew you as...

Haha, the chitrach infestation was bad. I was actually referring to the graphics, though: on original release, A4 used Geneforge's clawbug graphic for chitrachs. This was a pretty wild shift from how chitrachs had been depicted in previous games. There were some other borrowings -- hellhounds that used roamer graphics IIRC -- but that one was the most conspicuous. This was fixed within a month or two (which may have been before the PC release altogether). I remember somebody on the forums producing an improved graphic, but I don't remember if Spiderweb used that or something else.

A4 truly is just as gated as A5. Even the Great Cave, while a larger area than earlier ones, is still gated. Personally A4 felt more gated than A5, because while in A5 the gates at least make sense geographically, in A4 they are blatantly obvious inserted progression limits. We may be having different experiences here because A4 was your first game. Since it took place in the same area as A1 and A2, but with a dramatically weirdly condensed map (this cannot be overstated), this made the gates really stick out -- since A1 and A2 were (with the obvious exception of Dark Waters) classic open world exploration games. A1, A2, and A3 all have the "game never ends" feature. The narrative around A4's development has shifted to be a bit less dramatic than it once was, but basically, Spiderweb had just sunk an unusual amount of time into an ambitious game (BoA) that, though it eventually did well enough, didn't receive as warm a reception, on release, as previous Spiderweb games. So there was a deliberate lean towards "what will lots of players out there like." This led to some very nice technical/mechanics improvements like quest boards and inventory windows (people forget this), but it also a loss of balance/variety (see also: G3) and a feeling that the existing game world was being ignored (especially because of the map, "the vahnatai did it", and the treatment of many NPCs, major and minor; the chitrach/clawbug fiasco didn't help). Personally, I enjoyed A4 despite all of these things. I probably do see it as a low point, but a low point for Spiderweb games is still better than a lot of what's out there.

A:EFTP really is great! A4 isn't really open world -- it's separate areas with gates, where you can't progress until completing the main quest for the previous area. But I think Jeff did suggest that a remake of A4 might involve more revisions than was the case for, e.g., A2.

Actually, it isn't always. Some shades are creations; others are basically ghosts; still others are manifested by crystals. This was already the case in Geneforge 1, so demons weren't really new in this regard. I don't particularly love the demons either... but the series also includes creations that are thinly-veiled fantasy staples like drakes, beholders, trolls, giant slugs, and giant bugs -- not to mention all the golems. And cockatrices in the remake! The truly unique creations are basically limited to the vlish and glaahk. Re "lightsabers in Skyrim" -- or like swords in Geneforge! Jeff originally started designing Geneforge without traditional fantasy elements, including swords. He changed the design because he looked at the history of SF RPG sales and figured he could compromise.

Based on the little palette of tool icons, it appears that some of this editor interface literally has not changed since the dev-use editor he created back in 1994. That's 30 years of being used to something...

Hi! This is really interesting... the download link does still work, but I had to copy and paste the URL into a new tab to make it work. I guess the server doesn't like direct links from the new forum software for some reason. IIRC the GOG version did not exist way back when I wrote that. I would expect it to work fine, just like the Steam version, but can't vouch for it. If you're on a mac, you will need to use the part of the instructions that say "in the application package itself." Right-click on the app, and pick the option to "open application package" (or something like that... it's been a while since I've done this). Alternately, it's possible that the GOG version somehow stores the resource files someplace else. But I don't have it, so I can't help. If you're on PC and can't find them, copy the name of one of the text files in the zip and try doing a search for that file name. All the files have identical names as the ones they replace, so you should be able to find it that way. Good luck!

Might be worth taking a look at your party composition and battle strategies. It might be the case that making just a few tweaks to how you're approaching it will make the combat much easier.

Glad you figured it out. In the future, please try not to make so many posts in a row. You can use the edit feature to add updates or new information to your original post. Thanks, your friendly neighborhood mod.

Hmm. Good point! Maybe Tuldaric's alteration method (which didn't require an actual Geneforge) became more widespread? Or maybe somebody came up with a more accessible version of the spell(s) that didn't require alteration.

Sigh. I haven't been trying to "definitely answer" any question; on the contrary, I've been raising objections to your arguments. You made assertions; your assertions have been criticized; it's your chance to defend the assertions, now, but ad hominems won't do that. I suppose you're right that there is a chance (however small) that the extrapolated predictions you brought (that's what they are -- not actual sales data) are more accurate than not. That doesn't make them a reasonable thing to base your analysis off of. See, for example, the wildly different numbers from the links goo posted. What makes your numbers more reliable than those? (Legit question, if you think something does, that's worth discussing.) (And since you brought it up: yes, it does come off a little presumptuous to just walk up and anonymously ask a developer for sales data and analysis based on these numbers.) I will apologize for any hurt from the question about your experience with the games. It wasn't intended to be snide: it was an actual statement of confusion. You wrote: These first three things that you point out are blatantly incredibly similar between all three games, compared to other games that are out there. How easy this is to quantify varies, but let's start with the easy one -- what difference in "features available" are you suggesting there even is between these three games? I'm genuinely confused as to how somebody could play all three games and conclude that there are even moderate differences between them in the categories you listed, compared with the genre at large.

Yeah, those are all interesting questions. But I think there are some challenges with this analysis. First, as has been beaten to death in this thread, the numbers you saw are absurd and clearly inaccurate. So attempting to explain what you saw in this data is a little silly. Definitely still interesting to think about what might lead to the games being received differently, but using bad data as a guide will doom your analysis from the beginning. Beyond that, there are a whole flurry of potentially relevant factors, and there's no real way to distinguish which ones were or were not impactful on sales. It's pure speculation, because there are so many factors and -- even if you had perfect data -- so few data points. There's just no way to sort this out. So, with the caveats that (1) we can't base our thinking on inaccurate data, and (2) we can really only speculate about what is and isn't an impactful factor, I'd look at your suggested factors as follows: - Story: Doubtful. Hardcore Spiderweb fans tend to praise E/A 1 for the originality of its premise and concept; 2 for its plot, atmosphere, and characters; and 3 for its variety and expansiveness. But these differences are much less pronounced in the remakes, and aren't really apparent at all in the early game. Plus, all three games are very similar to each other in this regard when compared to other stuff in the genre. So I'd be surprised if these nuances affected mass market behavior. - Features: Doubtful. For the remakes, these simply don't shift much between these three games, especially when compared to other titles. - Pacing: Doubtful, and I'm starting to wonder whether you've actually played these games? With the exception of a sequence in E/A 2, they all offer extremely open-ended progression compared to other games out there (and even other Spiderweb titles). - First-timers to CRPGs: I agree with goo's analysis above; "totally new to CRPGs" is going to be a very tiny proportion of purchases for any game that isn't super mainstream, big-studio, heavily advertised and front-paged by Steam, etc. (and even then probably a small proportion) I think situational factors are much more likely to be relevant: - Availability on different game-purchasing platforms - Price, sales, and timing of sales and promotions - How many other RPGs (big deal, or classic RPGs, etc) were released around the same time - Pollination from twitter, twitch, word of mouth, etc, which itself will be affected by all of the above plus general gaming culture

Aha! Okay, thanks for sharing. I loaded up your game, checked things out, and I've found your issue. It's not a bug, and it's also not something listed in that walkthrough. And I also see why this isn't something other people have encountered... In order for Erika to trust you for this big deal mission, you need a reputation of at least 22. Then you'll see a new option, "What sort of mission do you need me for?", when you ask about her plans of revenge. Generally, by the time anyone is working on the big 3 endgame quests, their reputation is well beyond 22 anyway. You'll need to go complete a few more minor quests, then come back, and Erika will actually help you. (With stats as high as yours ended up, I can understand why you felt ready to jump to endgame content, hehehe.)

Can you upload a save file somewhere?