wanderon

I'm not getting how anyone can call any of these classes boring old rehashes without having a clue from the devs as to how they are being implemented. Just becuase of their titles? Would you rather the classes were merchants, fishermen, farmers, blacksmiths, witches, assemblymen, militia, squires, knights, dukes, commoners, nobles, ruffians, thugs,? Seems to me we should see what they actually have in store for us before pronouncing them boring rehashes. That said - this game is supposed to be an old style isometric CRPG - it was never supposed to break new ground with an entirely new cast of characters never before seen. Looks to me like a great mix of new and old and from whats already been said by the devs I'm thinking we are not likely to see boring or rehash when all is said and done. Of course this is the internet so negativity rules I suppose...

chance, not random chance. How is it not random if the result of your choice is based on a dice roll regardless of how much or little "insight" you are given?

Why can't the game just be the game without mini-games cluttering up the landscape - just taking a group through the game and meeting the challenges set forth by the story and how it's implemented should be interesting and engaging enough without resorting to mini games of chance or other inane mini games to while away the hours at some tavern or circus tent. The game and story should evoke enough urgency to make progress through the land and plot the only thing needed to capture your attention. This is a story driven RPG not some medival fantasy version of the sims. If you need a break from the urgency then save the game and go do something else - don't make the plot hooks and quest options so inane that the player feels like spending an hour or two playing dice and quaffing ale for crying out loud and don't take resources away from making the story, quest lines, gameplay, mechanics, classes, dungeons, cities, dialoges, options, classes, companions, weapons, and every other thing that actually serves the story and progression to add some other little game within the game just becuase someone thinks playing dice in the tavern for hours would roxxors. This is not a 25M action RPG for consoles and smart phones - it's a 4M old style isometric CRPG - hopefully with the emphasis on RP! How many minigames did BG1 need to be played by so many for so long that a new official enhanced edition is being released tomorrow some 14 years after the original and so many people were preloading it last weekend that the servers couldn't handle it? How about zero? Thats how many we need in PE too! (IMNSHO)

Might mean there's more info on other classes but I suspect it relates more to what people consider their usual first class to play in almost any RPG since we really know next to nothing about how any of them will work or what they may be facing or who will be able to do the talking for the party or any details about companions and whether they will be universally available or some may only work with certain factions and thus perhaps NOT be available if you choose option C or D or all of the above. Remind me again why we are even asking this question when we know none of the stuff that might allow for an intelligent decision?

KotOR (can't recall which one) - the mini gun or whatever when traveling from planet to planet - if I want to play a shooter I'll buy one - also the swoop racers - if I want a simulator I'll buy one - what to do to improve them - leave them out - don't try to add in mini games becuase you think everyone enjoys playing them - use your resources to make a great CRPG instead. No it's not OK to make mechanics in CRPGs that base success or failure on PLAYER hand/eye coordination - the object of the game is to roleplay a character and companions and by using your brain find ways to get them through the challenges presented to THEM by utilizing the skills the game provides for THEM - not directly to the player - it's not twitch, it's not poker, its not solitaire, it's not chess, it's not a shooter, it's not a race game, its a CRPG and it's enough to just be that period. Why does every game have to be everything to every player?

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the way you interact with different factions may have some bearing on how your party becomes structured as the game progresses especially if you plan to use the provided companions vs Adventurer Hall homemade party members.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. It's not a matter of not having morality, obviously morality should be present. It's a matter of depicting morality as it is in real life; nuanced and subjective. When I say the game shouldn't have a a morality system, I don't mean that the actions you take should have intentionally counter-intuitive results or none at all. I mean each different npc should react differently to your actions, based on their own personal morality. You could choose to do nothing but deeds you considered to be decent and selfless, but that doesn't mean they will be perceived as such or that you are automatically entitled to any reward for doing so. Suicide bombers actions are doubtlessly selfless, but they are still (I'm sure most would agree) pretty evil. A rich man may think its decent to offer some scraps from his table to a poor beggar, but the beggar may consider this patronizing and cruel. Thematic elements don't really enter into it, you just do what you think your character would do, the game reacts accordingly, and you reach your own conclusions. Rather than always choosing one option or another so the game can pat you on the back or tell you your a d*ck, respectively. Thematic elements don't have to enter it, but in its absence, a default - ie the designer's - moral compass inevitably does, because it is he / she who has to craft your options, the game's reactions, and the presentation of outcomes. My conveyance is that even when you think you are simply following the logical maxim of choice and consequence, the end result is never independent of an a priori moral system. Indeed, the very act of deciding the choose events in a game requires the presence of such a system, because practically speaking there is no way to offer the player every choose event imaginable. To make it concrete, consider the following example: The PC finds a torture victim in a dungeon. He is allowed to: ? ?? ??? ... The result of <X> is: ? -> ___ ?? -> ___ ??? -> ___ ... I argue that how you choose to fill in the blanks is a function of your moral compass, even when you think that you are just roleplaying the characters. I would argue it is not the designers (personal) moral compass but the compass of the theme/story they have decided to portray that leads to their choice of options to offer you altho different writers working on different sections may skew the theme/story towards their own take on the theme/story which may differ from others to some degree (likely a small one as I assume they are managed (or possibly edited) well enough to keep them all on the same page most of the time.) As for your own choices being a funtion of your own moral compass even when you are roleplaying I'd say that varies considerably from player to player just generally and will probably depend at least in part in how close or far away from the players own percieved vision of himself he perceives character he has chosen to play to be - Perhaps on how much thought he has put into that choice as well - judging from the discussions we see on the forums - players that truly immerse themselves in their characters motivation and the desire to portray that character in that manner regardless of consequences might be a bit few and far between compared to the number of people who take their characters deep motivations much more lightly and are more interested in just having some fun with them.

@JFSOCC Well my original post which you labeled as a false argument was in direct reply to one suggesting the use of chess & poker specifically. As for developing a PE specific mini-game and then teaching it - my take on that was my first post in the thread: Bottom line? I don't like mini-games and think the devs have better options for thier time & resources...

As I recall the devs have said there will not be the typical good/evil axis in PE and that some things you might expect to find on that or a similar axis may differ in the game from one faction or area to another.

that's a false argument. it's not like you can't expect anything from the player. it's not a simulation where the only thing determining outcome is character stats. A false argument? Are we scoring a high school debate class here? Yes the player can be expected to have some input altho in a ROLEPLAYING game that input is typically in the form of determining strategies and deciding how HIS CHARACTER would proceed. Success and failure should for the most part depend on strengths and weaknesses in his CHARACTERS skills and attributtes vs those of the enemies and the games mechanics and not on the players dexterity and button mashing prowess or on knowledge the player has gathered from experiences outside the game. Introducing minigames like chess and poker at the very least unfairly skew game results towards those with specialized outside knowledge of their workings while offering nothing that relates to the players CHARACTERS in the game and thus IMO serve no useful purpose in the game save from those who happen to play and enjoy those games outside the confines of the roleplaying game. Would you have the devs add these game forms to the "game requirements" - CAUTION: Player must have a thorough knowledge of chess, poker, backgammon, hearts, spades, & old maid, and be ready to learn other card and strategy & board games specific to this game on the fly in order to participate fully in these adventures. If you want to play chess or poker or other minigames - exit PE and do so to your hearts content - don't clutter up my CRPG with them...

The problem for this sort of thing (and minigames in general) in a CRPG is the game is supposed to be about the characters skill set not the players - so who's poker playing or chess playing skills is this going to rely on and how are they going to be determined?

I see no point to wasting precious development resources for mini games that are not "required content" nor do I like implementing them as "required content" especially if they are used to bring another game form like twitch gaming into the CRPG. If the player needs a break from questing and roleplay I suggest loading up a different game or shutting off the computer and going for a walk...

I chose rogue altho until we have more information thats just a guess based on the fact that I like a really good rogue type and I can't always count on the devs to provide one that fits the style of rogue-ness I want. Rogue is also typically a good group spokesman in case only the PC gets to lead conversations and it's typically the class with the most options. On the other hand if I get into the game and find there is the rogue of my dreams already waiting for me I'm quite likely to set my PC rogue aside and choose another interesting class to play instead. For that matter within the first month I am just as likely to have a half dozen PCs at various parts of the early game while I make up my mind which one will carry on to the next section first.

This is actually an area where using mini-games can bail you out. If you design the special encounters as individual mini-games, you don't have to worry (too much) about trying to apply universal rules to your entire game world. So you can focus on the universal stuff that gives you the most bang for your buck. True, true. However, going that route, you have one of two options: A), make epic quest 1 a super-cool, in-depth minigame with awesomely unique mechanics that make everything seem extremely dynamic, then make the rest of the game (that isn't coded with minigame mechanics) comparatively bland (i.e. only a couple of outcomes and choices to affect things) OR B) Decide you want the majority of the game to feel as dynamic, and program every single in-depth quest with its own minigame-esque mechanics. Which probably wouldn't really save you much time or many resources as compared to simply coding the game mechanics to provide such dynamicism all the time. I guess my point is that, if you agree that such a level of dynamicism in quest-tackling is amazing, but you only put it into a couple of parts of the game, that's only going to emphasize how absent it is from the rest of the game. Sure, I suppose it's better than its absence from the entire game. But, you're going to have all those people wondering why all the other quests weren't that awesome. Thats assuming one finds the idea of quests that operate "randomly" awesome - count me as opposed to that scenario even on a limited basis - now if it was done on a limited basis I might put up with it and just complain a bit - if it was gamewide I probably wouldn't even load it up.

Well what a pleasant and civil debate has erupted since I was last here - here's an idea from forum wisdom 101 - don't feed the trolls...

You sure? Can't say I've encountered anyone like that. Or could it be that you are making wild assumptions and use broad generalization? What??? Wild assumptions and broad generalizations? On the internet????????

Possible failure in a video game is dieing/not being able to finish (on a given difficulty). Failing despite reaching the end of the game is just aggravating. Seems to me a game that offers multiple endings could be (and should be) more complex than just succeeding or failing. If the endings rely on the players choices made during the game then the ending should speak to the player in some manner whether he/she finds it aggravating or not - To me an RPG should be about a lot more than just finding a way to the end - it should be about the choices you make along the way and the consequences of making them. If every path just leads to the same place whats the point of having them - just constructing a bridge to the next product in the series? I hope not. Choices should affect your story in the now; not shuffle you toward a specific ending. Torment did it well in that no matter what you did you pretty much got the same ending, but by exploring the game you learned more and could achieve that ending in various ways. There was never a point where you go to the end and the TNO just instagibbed you because you didn't make the right choices along the way and thus auto lost. Why does an RPG have to boil down to simply won or lost? Why can't the actions you take during the game have enough impact & meaning to lead you to different endings much as they might in real situations? Wouldn't that make the game better than just dovetailing anything you do during the game back to the main planned ending after all was said and done? Isn't that exactly what people complained about in NWN2 - that you could pick sides between the thief guild and the guard once you got to town but it all brought you back to the same place and thus was meaningless in the end? Without getting into spoilers isn't that exactly what happens in DA2 as well and isn't that one of the biggest disappointments of the game? Maybe with independent funding and no publisher breathing down their neck Obsidian can take this game a step further than some of those disappointments of the past and make it truly memorable and almost impossible not to replay several times with different results.

lawful does not mean to abide the laws of the land, if the laws are unlawful in view of the "greater picture" (which in DnD have specific alignments) then the paladin fallows only his code... that's the lawful thing for him. The code of the order, the vows, the virtues of his god Yes I understand the typical D&D concepts of paladins but I was speaking in general terms not out of the D&D handbook - how many fantasy worlds are going to exist where the laws of the common man are going to differ in any great degree from the code of any paladin order that exists there? My point (in case you missed it) was to mock the fact that people playing computer games in general (especially those present on gaming forums) seem much more interested (and vocal) in kick the puppy evil characters then aligning themselves with some goody-two-shoes fantasy hero type and went on to mock the fact that perhaps a small portion of that might come from someplace closer to home than some may wish to admit.

Not over exaggerating their sameness or dismissing their differences (like everything else on the internet is either over exaggerated or dismissed as trivial) might be a good place to start... Seeing what Obsidain actually plans for them (4 due next week) might be another...

It's hard to imagine that the concept of a lawful good character who always wants to remain within the laws of the land and his god and never falter from the tenets of good as he understands them and almost always carrys a huge blessed sword would not be the most popular and emulated of all options in video games - I guess it's just because most gamers live this way every day in real life and when it comes to gaming they want to try something different...

I suspect these will not appear until much much later in the development process - almost certainly not until the paypal option has been closed and possibly long beyond that as they close in on the ship date.

Possible failure in a video game is dieing/not being able to finish (on a given difficulty). Failing despite reaching the end of the game is just aggravating. Seems to me a game that offers multiple endings could be (and should be) more complex than just succeeding or failing. If the endings rely on the players choices made during the game then the ending should speak to the player in some manner whether he/she finds it aggravating or not - To me an RPG should be about a lot more than just finding a way to the end - it should be about the choices you make along the way and the consequences of making them. If every path just leads to the same place whats the point of having them - just constructing a bridge to the next product in the series? I hope not.

Well on the bright side at the moment the poll numbers seem to indicate that a rather solid 52.7% majority has no tolerance for anthropomorphic animal races with 38.6% voting they would tolerate them albeit with no way of determining whether those who might tolerate them would actually like to see them other than by scanning the text voters have left for clues. Considering the fact that Obsidian has never indicated they were even considering adding them and as far as we know the playable races have already been determined I'd wager this poll will probably not encourage them to re-open discussions on whether or not a last minute chinchilla headed player race should be shoehorned in to PE to soothe the furry faction... I'm good with that...

Rather than try to make other classes like ranger, druid, monk, chanter etc some form of sub-set of a core class why not give them enough different mechanics and abilities to assure they are NOT a sub-set and have every one of the classes in the game stand on their own as a viable class?

From the PE wiki http://eternitywiki.com/Paladin Sounds like a series of command type buffs and soul powered smite are on the table at this point.