maia

Speaking of a setting, I'd gladly take any Obsidian chooses, but IMHO something similar to the one in Charles Stross's "Capital Laundry" series could be really interesting and fresh. I.e. a modern setting, with the cave-out that Lovecraftian horrors (or whatever supernatural threats) are real and a secret government agency struggles to contain their incursions, while simultenously running a cover-up for the general public. What makes it all the more difficult is that "spells" are actually based on mathematical algorithms, symbolic logic, etc. so that somebody who was just trying to write a really neat computer program could accidentially open a dimensional gate for an eldritch horror, etc. Your character's main magical weapon is a phone/tablet loaded with various esoteric programs, etc. So, there could be a lot of different things to do - investigation of accidents, cover-ups of the same, tracking and stopping/recruiting people who unbeknowest to themselves could be up to something really dangerous, infiltration of cults that purposefully ditto, tracking posessed individuals, and occasionally confronting said horrors, sometimes even going through dimensional gates to do so. At the same, you have to deal with all the stuff a public employee is saddled with - office politics, audits, budget cuts, etc.

It is better because you can make a clever plan and execute it perfectly. What's the point of combat, if it is not challenging, interesting and satisfying, but largely a chore? RTwP was introduced as a compromise to quickly deal with trash enemies, which were deemed necessary to keep action constantly going. But in this hypothetical Obsidian game there is no reason to have trash action - just give us the good bits and the system most suitable to enjoy them! And BTW, I am not a TB-grognard and I have only played, maybe 3 turn-based RPGs (2 Fallouts + Wizardry VIII) on PC + Civilizations. But iOS(!) games really made me appreciate how enjoyable a decently made TB combat system can be.

Well, I consider excellent writing and meaningful choices/consequences to be a given, with Obsidian's pedigree. Beyond that I'd like to see: 1. Turn-based, party-based (at least 2 NPCs with full control over them), enjoyable combat. No tedious filler combat or trash mobs! Every encounter should be at least moderately interesting. 2. Option for a female main character and decent visual design of female characters in general. No whore/stripper/high heels/steel bikini estethics, please! DS3 visuals were utterly cringeworthy and ensured that I'd never, ever buy it. 3. Exploration should be about more than just combat. I'd really love to see some pit traps, secret doors, illusionary walls, etc. I know that a lot of RPG fans are in arms about puzzles, but surely something that takes into account stats (but not to the extent of PST's puzzles, which were all about stats) and is strictly environmental could be acceptable? Party needing to affix a rope to get over a chasm, strong character being able to lift something heavy and uncover a secret passage, a mage (or an explosives specialist) being able to blow something up ditto, or maybe freeze water with a cold spell/some tech gadget, etc. Indie iOS (!) games reminded me how enjoyable something like that could be.

I thought that the werewolf was unbeatable and the idea was a horror scenario, where you have to run away from an enemy that totally outclasses you? Re-playing Gothic 2 with the Night of the Raven expansion, BTW. What a great game, at least in German! I wish somebody would make a similar game with good sneaking and climbing systems, as well as gender choice for the protagonist, that would be heaven! Alas... pretty unlikely.

And play for what? 6 hours? 8? Not to mention that purportedly the last 30% of "Crysis" is not so great and generally Crysis is just another shooter, albeit a pretty one. There is no doubt that by a MMO with modest tech requirements folks in strained circumstances get far more entertainment for their buck. Not to mention that ongoing small payments are easier to manage (and justify to oneself) and they can cancel at any time. Personally, I am sick and tired of the graphics race and would heartily endorse some single-player games with lower-end graphics as well. Maybe the Devs would even manage to make them with few bugs and new, interesting gameplay, if they aren't so concentrated on forcing some extra pixels in? Isn't it funny, how most games run at top form on most normal gamers PCs only a year or 2 after release, when they have become bargain purchases long since? What kind of screwed up economics is that? Re: KOTOR MMO - what an unfortunate decision. Particularly without even finishing the single-player games plot arc. I really don't understand Lucas Arts - they had a very successful "Jedi Knight" franchise, they killed it. KOTOR was also successful, but they just had to push KOTOR 2 out of the door before it was ready, so that it wasn't quite as successful as the original, but still nothing to sneeze at. And then they didn't even have the decency to finish the trilogy, before cannibalizing it for another try at a MMPORG. Oh, the humanity...

Because they like to think that their customers are helpless addicts, who'd upgrade constantly to be able to experience the newest pixels per square inch record, who _should_ be savvy enough to get around any performance issues and bugs (both inherent and DRM-related) in the unfinished games, or what do they think they are doing, owning a PC? And those imaginary lemming buyers can _only_ be side-tracked from a day one purchase of something, that will become playable later, after a few patches, by piracy. _Nothing_ to do with ease of use, or quality or stability, not at all . Way to bury one's head in the sand, I say! I mean, probably a half of computer owners now use a laptop and they likely outnumber the whole of the console owners by a large factor. But is anybody interested in making new games aimed specifically at them? Of course not! Not much scope for phat graphics on a middle-of the way laptop. For some reason games for DS can get away with simpler graphics, with being in "dead" genres, with being turn-based, etc. But for PC?! Not AAA enough .

What makes me wonder about the whole piracy argument is this - can't you just copy a console play disc and play it on a modded console? And wouldn't that mean that in fact console piracy could be many times higher than assumed by download statistics? Who'd bother downloading, when they can conveniently and cheaply rent and copy? Personally, I always had a gut feeling that discrepancies in sales are in much greater part due to the fact that with a console game, you can buy, stick it in and be sure that, by and large, it will work. While with the PC games, we go into the land of insane (and often false as printed on the box) hardware requirements, bugs, and DDRMs that can screw one's entire system or at the very least make playing rather uncomfortable. And the DDRMs used aren't even clearly labeled on the box, nor are there any instructions inside explaining what might set them off! Thus, the paying customers have been trained not to impulse-buy, not to buy on release on the PC and ideally to wait until the most egregious problems have been fixed - which usually means budget price. IMHO, developers need to concentrate on providing stable, working content aimed at _medium_ current PC rigs, not the bleeding age or tomorrow's technology and trump with gameplay and art direction, not with the number of pixels. All this AAA talk is misleading anyway, as the majority of truly successful recent PC games had relatively modest system requirements. They should also stop assuming that a legit PC gamer is computer-savvy and will find a way around their bloopers. That may have been the case back then, but it is certainly no longer true. Something along those lines, and not the ever more draconian DRMs may turn around the current trend.

Really? That's awesome. It never occurred to me to to climb trees, but I did like climbing rocks and buildings in the Gothics. There was also that great diving quest in G1. Never tried G3 though - my aging computer probably would explode and then there is a ton of bugs in it. What I don't understand is why after such a long time of climbing being present in so-called "action-adventures" it didn't become an integral part of all one-character action games. Lack of climbing already drove me to distraction in Half-Life 1 and Deus Ex and despite supposed technological progress since then, nothing changed . Tactics could be so much more interesting and it would be so much more immersive. That dreaded word, I know, but every time my supposedly heroic character is stymied by obstacles that an average person should be able to overcome with ease, I am torn out of the game, thoroughly irritated and reluctant to continue. And again, imagine a stealth-action TV series without climbing. Alias, say. Would take all interest out of stealth, wouldn't it?

OK, from previews so far it seems that climbing isn't in. That's pretty irritating for me, since I really miss it even in normal shooters, let alone in the games with stealth aspect. Honestly, stealth without climbing is always very half-baked. If you are caught by an approaching enemy, there is no option for last-minute escape, it is shoot-out or reload. Also, creative ways to get somewhere are very limited without it. And no, ultra-high jumps are no substitute, since they tend to be loud, tediously finicky to use and of course increase your character's visibility, or should. So, why, oh why? With all the supposed technological advancement climbing and swimming should have been standard for FPSs and third-person-over-the shoulder action games, including action RPGs.

Male-only protagonist? Meh. Hopefully, there is a largely non-combat path in this game. I.e. even when you do absolutely need to kill somebody (and there should be only a few such cases) you can use stealth and indirect means - poisoning, setting a bomb, etc. to do so. Oh, and I really hope that they have climbing. Stealth without climbing never works well and it irritates the blazes out of me that a supposedly highly-trained hero can't do something that a thoroughly average person can do in RL. Otherwise very interesting. I agree that RL RPGs are sorely missed. I would have preferred one where combat is a last resort rather than a core gameplay mechanics though. And where they would use disguise / puzzle design of the Hitman series to gain information rather than to murder. as well as Bloodlines-like dialog. The protagonist could be a journalist, a private detective or a more "realistic" spy who can't afford to dispatch regiments of enemies and still remain in the trade. Oh, well. It is a start, I suppose. Just remember to make it finished and stable, Obsidian!

Well, yet another Diablo-clone that was inferior to original in everything but graphics didn't sell as well as the Devs thought it should have. Color me unimpressed. Regarding piracy - the industry doesn't want to hear it, but a lot of it self-inflicted. As has been noted, diversity of computer builds complicates making bug-free games from the get-go. But developers, publishers and retailers exacerbate the problem by introducing DRM schemes that degrade performance or even make honestly purchased games unplayable for customers who are not tech wizzes, denying return options for customers who can't make their legally purchased game work (which is unheard of for any other product) and by going for graphical cutting edge in new games, which simultaneously reduces their consumer base and introduces more bugs. Wake up! Every customer who threw their money away because they couldn't make your game run and wasn't allowed to return it is likely lost to computer gaming for good. Every customer who was forced to look for no-CD cracks to make their game work or perform decently is at risk of being seduced by piracy. War against piracy should never be carried out at the expense of the paying consumer, as it only results in game industry losing twice over. And as regards the console games, as far as I can see the art of pirating them seems to be flourishing here in Europe, where both the consoles and the games are comparatively quite expensive.

Would it have a quicksave this time around? I played Vice City and liked it, but repeating the missions ad nauseam (including the driveup to get the mission, the cutscene and then the whole way to location) because I am a klutz killed it for me. I finished "Mafia" with much grinding of teeth , but it had such a great story that I just felt compelled to. Even so, I merely liked it a lot instead of adoring it, due to lack of free saving and resulting need to repeat certain segments dozens of times.

Oblivion is broken in a new way. Really, Bethesda was told ad nauseam during Obl developement that for scaling to be enjoyable, it should have both minimum and maximum thresholds and some random variety. They chose to disregard it so that everything could be completed at any level and ended up with the current lackluster and absurd implementation. I hope beyond hope that they don't go that way with Fallout, because there isn't an inbuilt expectation of that kind of moronic FREEDOM!!! like there is with TES. Also, such things can be fixed with mods. The main problems though are that Bethesda just doesn't have good writers and their quest design tends to be sadly lacking. Thus, the wonderful potential of an open-ended gameplay is never realised, not even close.

Hm... But wouldn't he fall if the group acts evilly? Also, the influence system seems about agreeing with NPCs/doing stuff they approve of. Do Cha/dialogue skills allow us to talk NPCs round without even when we are doing something they disagree with? I really want to try a persuasive evil bard the first time through - it looks like one of the few games where it would be feasible... I also usually play female the first time, but a paladin love interest seems highly problematic in this context. But thanks anyway.

Thanks. What class is Calivar? Would any of them get upset with an evil character?

OK, a defenitive answer on who the male and female romance interests are and whether one can romance them with an evil character, please!

Thanks. But what about romances for females? And also - does Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and AC from Tumble stack with medium armor? I am thinking of a Bard in medium armor with 1 class of cleric for the armor feat, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge/Toughness and Divine Shield.

Please, tell me who the romances are! I don't have the game yet, but I am going crazy trying to decide on a character (not big on replaying the beginning countless times, makes me sick of a game) and this aspect is very important to me, as I am a very meticulous player and thus don't replay much. I want to get some the first time through! Oh, and is it feasible to play an intelligently evil character? Or at least a self-centered mercenary one, who actually profits in-game by such attitude? And which social skills are best for such? I was thinking about bluff and taunt or intimidate, but heard that it is actually diplomacy that allows one to successfully demand higher rewards? Seriously considering an evil bard...

Please, tell me who! I don't have the game yet, but I am going crazy trying to decide on a character (not big on replaying the beginning countless times, makes me sick of a game) and this aspect is very important to me, as I am a very meticulous player and thus don't replay much. I want to get some the first time through! Oh, and is it feasible to play an intelligently evil character? Or at least a self-centered mercenary one, who actually profits in-game by such attitude? And which social skills are best for such? I was thinking about bluff and taunt or intimidate, but heard that it is actually diplomacy that allows one to successfully demand higher rewards?

Well, _after_ a fight isn't so bad. They started imediately prior to and during fights in BG2 for me, sometimes. Maybe when there was some kind of lull or something? Anyway, are there romances in NwN2 and who are the romance NPCs? Please spoil me as to their identity and romance limitations (race, alignment?) under a spoiler tag. I don't have the game yet, nor a video card to play it, but I am already planning some characters and would like to know what NPCs to count on in a a party. TIA.

Yes, the problem is that whether the game is geared for replayability or not defines what kind of gameplay will be found in that first playthrough and thus the whole experience. I am myself not big on replaying, as I am a pretty meticilous gamer and have a good memory. But, I enjoy potentially replayable games a lot more because they offer more satisfying quests, where the player's decisions or character build can have longreaching effects, offer robust support for several different playstyles, etc. I may never replay DEx 1 as a character focussed on explosives, the rocket launcher and melee, but it certainly heightened my enjoyment that the choice was there. I am also an old TES fan (didn't yet get Obl though), because I like big free-style worlds with lots of clutter, but it always irritated me that char-building, quest design, adventure elements and dialogues were so inferior. And it is the "do everything with a single character" philosophy that makes them so, IMHO. Anyway, I'd be deliriously happy if they pulled off DEx 1 or Bloodlines on a greater scale with F3 (heresy, I know), but I am very much afraid that they can't. They didn't hire any good writers that I heard of (and I really hoped that they would grab some Troika people ) and the notion of showing the player everything the first time through is far too pervasive - thus no real choices, no consequences, etc. The most one can hope for is that they will finally give a decent support to stealthy gameplay...

Nope. But then, I am weird. I like taking non-Jedi companions along in both KOTORs. And I build them up as melee fighters whenever feasible and optimize them as well as I can. In part one, melee Canderous, melee Carth and upgraded HK-47 were more efficient killers than Jolee and Juhani. In part 2, Visas and JediMira were weaker than pre-change melee Atton, Mandalore or Hanharr. Atton's and Disciple's power level changed only slightly when they changed, Mira became noticeably stronger (but not strong enough), I didn't try non-Jedi Handmaiden and didn't bother with turning the Iridonian (though I'd guess that he improves a lot, like Mira).

Third time is a charm? But really, it explains both the quick power progression and the reason _why_ all those folks would follow the PC's lead far better than when a PC is a complete newb freshly from the turnip truck. To explain how such a character becomes "the last hope" you have to go into the "prophecized one" clich

In theory. But in the praxis of KOTORs the power difference isn't noticeable, much. A soldier built and equipped for melee is as powerful as a Jedi of the equal level, only much more boring to use. A scout or a scoundrel would be slightly harder... but only slightly. And equally uninteresting. There aren't enough different active feats for non-Jedi characters to vary the combat. And soldiers, androids and various beasts could be made challenging, if they had and used a variety of special attacks, had resistances, used group tactics, healed, shielded and used stimulants on a regular basis, etc. They are only fodder because the Devs chose to make them so.

Not in my opinion. A CRPG protagonist is supposed to kill hordes of enemies, so s/he might as well be a Jedi. Why else would a small team be sent into a frontal assault against an Evil Overlord and his hosts and be expected to succeed? If those so-called Dark Jedi bothered to use their powers, they would have been far better opponents. Those very few Jedi who actually did, both in KOTOR1 and 2 were good enough. Why Bioware and Obsidian chose to go for lots of dull and unchallenging combat against weak enemies in the KOTORs, rather than for fewer but more interesting encounters like in BG2 is better known to themselves. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the class of protagonist. Personally, I prefer the protagonist to be a Jedi from the start and for a very simple reason - because there are almost no tactical options available to normal classes. That's why people tend to go for all-Jedi teams in the KOTORs - to have something to do, however illusory. Well-developed and equipped non-Jedi NPCs in both games were often equally efficient killers, but spamming rapid shot or flurry gets old fast. At least with the Jedi you get to use cool-looking effects. And yes, the protagonist has to be particulary powerful, because otherwise why expect them to win? It isn't like any clever approach is allowed, you have duke it out with the villain. But how many immensly powerful Force users can there be within such a short time period? They found a clever way out with the Exile (and an elegant explanation for why s/he remained in the bushes in part 1), but Exile was not a newb. In fact none of the movers and shakers in the previous 2 games were. And I don't see a compelling way to make one into a credible protagonist in part 3. "Hard work" doesn't cut it. Surely the True Sith and other Force users worked just as hard. Their lives depended on it, after all. No, something has to give a newb protagonist an extra edge - and the only non-repetitive way would be some "random" event like Astrocreep's ball of Force or my Revan posession. But personally, I really don't want a new protagonist...