Have you played Army of Two? A lot of the banter was very well liked that it garnered a sequel. Rios and Salem are two birds of the same feather.

Thats not even how it works in reallife.

A medieval warrior would have worn a helmet, many of which have been insanely protective. Okay, many people would wear open face helmets because of the many advantages (breath, sight, hearing), but even so then you have to actually attack the opening for the face specifically.

And obviously warriors fled from battle all the time, so that doesnt make sense either. The muscles you need for running are different ones than the ones you use for fighting.

I'm complaining because I'm sure the people who designed this probably thought this would be "realistic".

I didn't know these games and I see they are console games. I would never be able to play an action game with a gamepad. The only times where I was using a gamepad in my PC was when I was playing football games, and that's over 8 years ago.

Helmets do reduce the head hit damage, but as it's a guaranteed crit with a x5 extra damage multiplier on the damage it will usually be like 10 armor vs a 50 damage crit while your max HP is 60. So it will still do an insane amount of damage.

As far as realism goes, agreed, with the exception of blunt weapons. Helmet isn't going to do much against those. No need to penetrate the helmet when all you need to do is just cave it into the opponent's skull.

As for stamina, you can regenerate it in combat.... by standing absolutely still and doing nothing for a while. Stamina in this game is consumed by running and casting spells. Melee combat does not drain it, but it only regenerates if you stand still/enter passive stance. It could be possible that with focusing level ups on stamina, one might eventually start being able to outrun enemies. But to this point, every wild animal, goblin or orc was able to keep up whenever I did try running. Even big beasts like Trolls/Ogres. And given how drastically XP requirements for anything scale up in this game, dumping points into a stat that will only allow you to run away does not really seem feasible.

Zelda 2. (SNES)

Got the Raft and Reflect spell. Have all magic containers and 3 heart containers (missing the one that needs the boots). Have not done palace 4 yet. (Can't do 5 or 6. Could do the Great Palace if I so chose.)

Topheavy weapons such as battle axes, maces etc have a better chance to do anything against plate armor, including helmets, which have been plate armor before any other part of the armor became plate armor.

But they dont go easily through helmets either. Helmets are made especially sturdy because people knew how fragile and important the head is.

Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines
Really great game, yet far from 'perfect'. I don't often replay games - but I would replay this one, IF Arkane Studios made a remake.
Or maybe just as a mod for Prey or Dishonored? (that Source engine really does the game no favors)

Is that part 1 or part 2 ?

The original is one of my favorite games ever, I replay it I would say at least once per year.

Since just finishing Divine Divinity, which I enjoyed, now I am pondering what to play next. I should really play some other genres as well but somehow I just seem to have lots of RPGs in my "play next" list.

Since I am still trying to figure out how to get the Sacred Gold movies work in Linux, I was thinking of playing Neverwinter Nights instead. At least it seem to work 100% in Linux Wine, including the movies.

Is it worth it? I played a bit and it seems promising, but I keep also hearing the main campaign is a snore-fest. How long will it take for a pretty slow and thorough player, 1000 hours? I hope I will not be kicking myself in the head afterwards how I wasted 1000 hours of my precious life to a boring game.

I am not interested in playing user-made content, no time for that now. Maybe in next life.

And what's with those difficulty levels? E.g. the hardest difficulty, does it differ from the Normal difficulty mainly that enemies can hit criticals at you, there is friendly fire, and enemies overall do two times more damage than in normal difficulty?

Are there any perks for selecting the higher difficulties, e.g. more experience points or something?
Are the hardest difficulties manageable?
Can you change the difficulty afterwards to something else, if you feel it is too hard or too easy?

In e.g. Divine Divinity, I played a warrior with the hard difficulty, and overall it was quite ok. Some fights were quite challenging but nothing I couldn't really handle.

That "enemies do two times more damage" sounds pretty bad, and a lazy way to make a game harder. Hey, why not 10x more damage?

Is the Enhanced edition preferable nowadays? I e.g. liked the Enhanced Edition of Planescape Torment more than the original because there was e.g. the option that you will get maximum amount of skill/health points when you level up, so it is not up to luck what you get on level up (I hate when RPGs do that, even if it may be how the real Dungeons&Dragons rulebook says; I don't care, it still sucks).

EDIT: Considering the price of the EE and its numerous DLCs, I think I'll pass for now and play the original NWN Diamond instead... If I fall in love with it, maybe then buy the EE.

I should really just pick some short and simple indie action game instead, or some FPS shooter. Just to have some time out from massive RPGs.

Haven't started, but I've been planning a party for Wizardry 7.

I booted up a translation of Secret of Mana (￣～￣;)

I was playing Alone in the Dark but ran out of gas after Halloween (really made me wish for a straight 40's noir detective story in that style!). I'll go back to it in time, but for now...

... I'm playing Bannishers.

I'd waited for awhile hoping that since it's a Focus release it would find its way to GOG, but since a year has passed... picked it up on console.

Yes, the combat is mediocre and some of the sensibilities don't always mesh with the period and place, but the atmosphere is great, the characters are interesting (and voiced), and my first run-in with "evil" -- although technically a headache (yes, the combat) -- still sold me on the experience. Also, it especially interests me that the story creates an intersection between seemingly church-sanctioned exorcists and pagan ritualists (and witches) in what seems to be Massachusettes Colony of the 1600's. Prior to loading up the game I'd thought this was a medieval fantasy; the North American frontier setting really intrigues me.

The map, exploration, and general gameplay remind me very much of Greedfall. I keep wondering if Focus brought some devs in to Dontnod from Spiders..? Anyway, the game makes me wish Greedfall 2 had kept the party-based 3rd person gameplay.

The last 3 games I've played have been AA games that are known as commercial failures (Blades of Fire, Alone in the Dark, and The Bannishers). IMO all were / are very well-made (and at least one I might call a "hidden gem"). Haven't missed AAA much.

I've played the first two chapters of Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days, and it already seems to me a bit more difficult than the first game. At least its start "fixes" one of the endings of the first game, so that it is a good ending for everyone!

mandragora whispers of the witch tree And ever since I started playing, I can't stop. :)

Still playing Resident Evil HD REMASTER.