CybAnt1

BTW, if the game gives you multiple AI behavioral options, there's still a "tactical" element in choosing which ones to use - and perhaps even altering the behavioral setting for different types of encounters. Secondly, although few rarely bother, you also can edit what's in the tactics set (at least you could in DAO), which still gives the player some decision-making options. I think this is different than having the player "let the game play itself". I will say this - DAO party AI was lacking, it really took a mod to work optimally. Alas, that Improved Tactics Mod did something really weird, it put invisible constructs into the area, which could even, rarely, block doors - I ran into that bug once. I had to call tech support once where in Awakening I couldn't go through a door ... turns out this mod was the problem. The AI scripts in BG2, in order to edit them, you needed to actually understand programming and scripting ... at least DAO allowed you to do this without scripting/programming experience. "[select from dropdown] If hit points < 25%, [select from dropdown] drink healing potion." One of the most senseless aspects of the third DA game is the highly functional AI system of the second is gone! What, just because of jumping ?!? There were few areas in which I could say DA2 improved on DAO... but that would be one of the few, DA2 had good AI tactics, and it's a good thing, as it was far less mod-friendly. They also unborked the crafting system.

BTW, I can certainly count myself as one of the people who didn't know there was an action queue in PoE. Maybe it was mentioned in some tutorial tooltip I missed. But ... as was just explained - that action queue isn't visible, is it? IOW, I can't visualize the queue and see what are the next 3 actions in it, correct? KOTOR had such a visualized combat/action queue. I also think it would be excellent if the actions in the queue could be seen - maybe even changed/edited as they're being viewed (and battle fortunes/events change).

Poe-worthy.

I like choices. Probably for most encounters, I will be micro-managing all 6 party members. For trash mobs, I like the choice of micro-managing 1-4, and maybe letting the rest do their own thing. The game would never be playing itself, because the Watcher would always be under player control. Personally, I think it's just silly that intelligent entities won't even defend themselves under attack, if the player gets up to get a snack and didn't notice a mushroom beast was sneaking up on his party before s/he got up. If party AI's on a toggle (maybe globally as well as individually) - and it should be - the coolest thing is people who never want to use it, can never do so. Win/win, as they say.

Disagree, but I hope if they do party AI, that they do it right. i.e. ... have options for party members like Aggressive, Defensive, Ranged, and various options for Spellcasters (Controller, Healer, etc.)

I do hope they will add AI to NPCs in the future, but I don't think the combat, even without it, is all that bad. Personally, I find little satisfaction in spastically smashing & mashing buttons to spam attacks and twitching like a epileptic having a fit to move my character around. i.e. so-called "action-rpg" combat. BG2 had rudimentary AI, but it only really worked with mod-based scripts.

It's interesting, the first time I read a 4E sourcebook I said to myself "These look like game rules practically written with a computer/video game in mind!" Which is why I find it odd no game has ever been based on those rules - except, AFAIK, the Neverwinter MMO. (Dungeons & Dragons Online I think is still on 3.5E.) Sword Coast Legends will be using 5E. Of course, D & D licensing from Atari/WotC was a clusterf*k for a long while, and I think that had something to do with it.

Yeah, romance has never been part of the fantasy genre. Has its roots in medieval romances like Tristan and Iseult. Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere? A love triangle that pre-dated soap operas by a while. Say, there isn't anything in Tolkien about a romance between Aragorn and Arwen, is there? The chivalric knight always fought the dragon for his lady, often wearing an article of her clothing. Would Game of Thrones be at all interesting without ... the dalliances, the alliances, the romantic relationships? Now I will grant all this stuff may not be up to modern standards and ideas of gender, sexuality, and relationships, so the Bioware folks have always stumbled trying to do that, but ... it IS part of the genre. I really don't care whether or not they get added to these games, but I don't agree with people whose hate on Bioware is solely based on the fact that they do them. I have lots of other complaints, mostly relating to their ongoing consolization of their games.

While I like the Sawyer dogma of "no dump stats," personally I prefer a system where while not ALL stats might be useful to a character build, there is freedom in the stat system to go in different directions. So, yes, stat allocation isn't mindless. For example, perhaps no fighter build will make much use of Intelligence, but the building of a "Dex" agility fighter and a "Str" basher fighter and tank "Con" fighter might go in different directions. As a player of Might & Magic back in the day, I admit I find it interesting that in the Sawyersystem, Might is now useful for both mages and warriors.

There may be a way to give your party members AI, but if so, it's either going to come by mod or by patch. At the moment, you can't do it.

Not in BG1. BG2 let males romance Jaheira, Viconia, or Aerie. Females were stuck with ... Anomen. (All romance was het, unless you used a mod.) The romances went further in ToB ... play your cards right, you could have a child with Aerie, or change Viconia's alignment to neutral. (Unless you were evil yourself.) There even was a possibility of a love triangle, between you, Aerie, and Haer'Dalis. Depending on how you resolved it, the tiefling might duel you to the death, or leave the party. Never seen that used ever again in any Bio, or other, RPG. It's very soap opera-ish. There also was a slight creep factor to the Jaheira romance, as it's literally right after the death of her husband, for which you're indirectly responsible, and in the first game, she was sorta your relative (your auntie) although not truly by blood.

This is odd, as I was pointing out why I didn't understand someone else's criticism, not issuing any of my own. I understand your points, and I certainly wouldn't question the need for fine-tuning game design, I guess I wouldn't call many of those things by the word "balance" (although I know that is how many of these design tweaks are defined in patches). Decided, as always, to turn to google. I think I get now what this word means in a single player context. https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/level-16-game-balance/ In single-player games, we use “balance” to describe whether the challenge level is appropriate to the audience; In multi-player games where there is asymmetry (that is, where players do not start with exactly equal positions and resources), we use “balance” to describe whether one starting position is easier to win with than another. Within a game, if there are multiple strategies or paths to victory that can be followed within the game, we use “balance” to describe whether following one strategy is better or worse than following another. Within a system that has several similar game objects (such as cards in a trading-card game, weapons in a role-playing game, and so on), we use “balance” to describe the objects themselves, specifically whether different objects have the same cost/benefit ratio. I can see how 1, 3, and 4 apply to PoE ... so now I concede my position. Honestly, not being a game designer, I really only thought it applied to 2.

I am not an "isometric über alles" type guy. On the other hand, I *am* a "I want to control a party of 6 characters guy". Since no one seems to have squared the circle of how to do this in a fully 3D/1st person view environment -- witness recent problems with top-down cameras in other "true" 3d RPGs, and those only have parties of 4 -- well, I'll take the solution that exists. I hope some day somebody comes up with a top-down view in a "true" 3D game that lets me control 6 party members (and in a non-awkward, futzy way) -- I'm guessing it's doable. Just hasn't been done.

I must confess I don't get what "balance" issues are in a Single Player-RPG. An MMO, or MP game, needs balance, so that PvP combat isn't unfair/improperly matched. I understand that. However, "balance" complaints in a SP-RPG seem to amount to "one class is more powerful than another," which in a SP-RPG where some may lack power, but make it up in support or secondary skills (etc.) .... doesn't seem to really be something that matters. Pathfinding and AI are legitimate complaints. Some day, somebody will make a game where either enemies or NPCs actually figure out that after 30 seconds of trying to walk through one of their own team, they actually could go a different way. I hope it arrives. But I don't get the balance one. I really don't understand what it means to say a SP-RPG is 'imbalanced'.

I still think going with their own ruleset instead of sticking with D & D was the better choice. The main problem with using the D & D ruleset is you need WotC approval to make any changes to the rules, AND you're stuck with the world of Faerun. The rules can always improve when you have your own system, because you're not beholden to anybody else's IP. For example, if they decide to scrap Engagement, or rework it, they don't have to ASK anybody. Also, because they have their own game world/setting, they can be free to define the races, classes, etc. that exist within it. I will confess PoE is still not terribly innovative at this point (same dwarves and elves as every other fantasy world), but the point is, it has ROOM to be.