Magnum Opus

What if magic acted upon the caster the same way Potions do upon the Witcher? Toxic, in other words, with varying levels of toxicity for the various levels of spells, and with increasing penalties when your toxicity level got too high? That would certainly limit the spamming of high level spells, and if the "toxicity" only vanished after resting, or with the use of a potion which itself was hard-to-find -- exactly how hard to find would be a matter of balance -- then you introduce a strategic element as well. And what if, instead of the result of casting being a toxin in the blood a la potions, the resultant damage was to the person's soul instead? What if, after pushing oneself too hard for too long, magically speaking, the soul ended up splintering, fracturing, or otherwise even being destroyed, twisted, or consumed (in the case of demonic summoning?) Yep. A lot of "what if's" regarding magic. And souls.

The only thing I like achievements for is the meta-knowledge they bring to the table after I've already otherwise completed the game to my satisfaction and am ready to move on to something else. Just take a peek at the list of achievements and see what I've missed; if there's nothing more than a series of "kill X enemies with a CHAINSAW!!"- or "deal 10000- points of fire damage" -type awards, I know I've missed nothing. If there's something that says "recruit the Assassin", and I haven't even MET an assassin in the game, then I'm going to get very, very curious. I could get the same information from a message board or a detailed walkthrough for the game, but the achievement list is a handy, concise version of what should be most of the major points of interest in the game. As far as sharing my achievements online goes, though, or the game telling me that I've earned one... that could have gone away yesterday and it wouldn't have been soon enough. There's no benefit to me for any of that.

I'm probably overstating things -- nostalgia and all -- but for me at least, that little extra effort that Obsidian/Black Isle has always put into their writing and storytelling makes an otherwise good story really come to life. If they care about the setting enough to keep the town consistent from one game to the next, to change it in ways that make perfect sense from an in-context perspective... that's the mark of a storyteller, so far as I'm concerned. The details. Kuldahar is in IWD 2 as it should be, thirty years on from where it was in IWD1, The same, but different. Love that sort of consistency. But that same detail was there in Torment's Sigil as well, and again... made the place come alive. I honestly don't think I can overstate the importance of having a well created setting to go along with the actual plot line and characters of a game. Whatever they decide to do for this game, I'm certain that this game is going to have those same little details that I appreciate so much. Isometric is good and certainly underrepresented in today's gaming landscape, as is a fully controllable party, but the real draw was Obsidian. [/fangasm] *cough* Sorry. And now, back to cities.

No, he doesn't expect PE to be that sort of game. He's referring to the potential of 3D graphics over that of 2D graphics with that example, as he already mentioned. The example does raise an interesting question, tho: If everything Obsidian wants to do with the environments in the game can be done with 2D graphics alone (in terms of animation, interactivity, physics, lighting, etc), then that huge potential advantage of 3D over 2D essentially evaporates, doesn't it? The potential of the medium is always a major selling point, but rarely does the reality of the product live up to the potential of the medium. In the final game, the difference between the two techs might not amount to diddly. Am very curious to see those first few gameplay vids, whenever they start rolling. Not that it'll make much difference to me. I like a certain amount of bling in games and certainly wouldn't mind seeing mkreku's vision brought to a monitor near me, but I don't have a problem with going back to Baldur's Gate in all it's 640x480 splendour, either (tho I'm hoping for a higher resolution than that with PE. )

Found that Baldur's Gate far outshone Athkatla as far as well-realized cities, go. Sure, it was a sanitized version of a medieval city, but then... the game as a whole wasn't all that gritty either. The quilt-like nature of the overhead maps and how they all stitched together helped tremendously, but the thing that really sewed it all together for me was the sewer and how you could literally move from on area of the city to any other using nothing more than the sewer system. Will definitely agree that a bit of abstraction to its presentation can really bring out the character of a town, to the point where it almost becomes a character in itself. Kuldahar achieved that level for me in the IWD series, only not through abstraction but through the consistent level of detail: you could literally see it grow from one game to the next, with buildings being added or destroyed, with the tree either thriving or being hacked to bits, and a story large or small revolving around each change. That kind of existence -- the kind that transcends any one game -- really brings a city to life for me in a way that doesn't happen when the city changes too much from game to game. Neverwinter in the NWN series, for instance. The Neverwinters were just too different for me to feel I was in the same place. Kuldahar, though? The implementation of that town in the IWD series was brilliant, I thought. Kirkwall might have had the same potential with the Ten Year Span, only in one game instead of across a series, but by all accounts that didn't work out so well. Is not about the sheer size of the place, though: the larger they TELL me the city is, the more I'm likely to notice that when you get right down to it, there really aren't that many people living there, nor all that many buildings. Towns and villages, I think, tend to come across better rather than massive metropolises in this respect. The "district" or "ward" model seems to work better for me, rather than a continuous/seamless environment; that's where the abstraction comes into play. A certain level of abstraction to its presentation can make me accept a few relatively small areas as being part of a gigantic hub of civilization whereas in a seamless 3d world where I can see from one edge of the city to another, I might start asking all those uncomfortable, illusion-breaking questions. So yes. I like cities. Wilderness too, but this thread is about cities. Gimme. Pack it with detail, make it consistent enough to be used by the player instead of the other way around, provide a reason for me to play, and let me "go to town"... so to speak.

I wouldn't mind the option, particularly if 1) the game allows party members to die permanently in the game mode I'm playing in, and 2) I manage to get all the real NPCs killed. And let's face it, I'm going to throw those other guys under the bus long before I get my own character killed. In such cases, joinable NPCs are to me what the red-shirted ensign is to Captain Kirk, or what the slow friend is to the group trying to survive the upcoming zombie apocalypse. Is not a big deal either way, tho.

You're not prejudiced against the phlegm-peoples of the world, are you? 'cause that would be... bad... 'n stuff. I think. All they want is a quiet place where they can ooze and shlurp in peace. Embrace the slime!

No, no you don't. I'm... I'm sorry. Life can be cruel sometimes.... But yes, you might like it. C'mon... give it a chance. It'll be good, I promise. All the cool kids are doing it. It'll be even better when you escape from it. Embrace your inner sewer!

Yes... Yes you are (and no, that other guy up there doesn't count) Sewers are good. Sewers are atmospheric. Atmosphere is good. Embrace the atmosphere, embrace the dungeon sewer. Become one with the muck and the refuse and the tunnels which carry it from the light into places unknown and forgotten. Embrace it. Sewers. Yes please. Varied environments are good. Swamps, too. Here's casting another vote in with the "The Witcher 1's swamp was awesome" crowd.

I'd be interested as well. To my mind, it's only one of the lesser offenders these days because the caps (level or XP) are usually pretty well placed, and people only reach them as they're winding down the game anyway, if they reach them at all. But consider what happened (ironically) with the Un-TotSC-ified version of Baldur's Gate, where players on the old Interplay boards were reporting that they were reaching the XP cap in Cloakwood forest or early upon arrival in the city of Baldur's Gate in Chapter... what was it, five? That left a great big chunk game to play with no character advancement even possible for those players that chose to explore every nook and cranny. That's a pretty serious flaw in an arbitrarily set limit, IMO, particularly considering how important a motivation the next level up usually is in RPGs (Baldur's Gate remains an example of a game with not only one of the best level caps in crpgs, but one of the worst as well, I think).

It's not the size of the numbers that matter. It's the curve. This, as you've already mentioned, also ties into my own sense of how easy or how difficult the game itself (and the rules it uses) makes it for me to identify with my party members. With a linear progression, there's a game play need to introduce such nonsense as group leveling which makes no sense to me from an individual character standpoint. With that linear progression, though, that newb character will always be just as far behind my character as they were before, which messes with encounter balance and item usage (it items are restricted by character level) and who knows what else. You also run into a more stringent need for that level cap: Baldur's Gate: TotSC had things like infinitely respawning monsters, but because of the exponential curve, there would come a point when it simply didn't matter how many times you rested in the wilderness: the XP you gained simply accounted for proportionately less of that next level you were grinding for in the first place. I actually removed the XP cap for that game with a mod once, and with the way I played the game (occasional monster grinding, resting in dungeons to try and replenish my mages spells, etc) it still didn't make a difference in terms of the levels my group of six characters were able to acquire. Not a single extra level was had by my removal of that XP cap. Which is good, because it means that the designers of the game and the system that game used actually got it right. Basically, will agree with the notion that the choice of rule system for your game can make it easier on BOTH the players to identify with the story elements you're trying to convey with those rules, and the designers who have to try and put it all together. Nothing screams "poorly thought-out mechanics" like artificial limits and arbitrary barriers being thrown up all the time that, at best, do nothing to positively reinforce the story elements that are being portrayed, or, at worst, actively tear down the story your writers have created. This is what frustrates me so much about Bioware these days. The game, while still fun enough, simply ooze with such contradictions, to the detriment of the very story they're trying to tell.

Dungeons in recent games have become rather pointless affairs for me, because they amount to no more than caves. And not the long, labyrinthine caves, either... am talking more wolf-den kind of things. That's one of the reasons I was one of the very few (apparently, judging by the BSN commentary, anyway) who appreciated the Deep Roads in Dragon Age Origins. Too Long! they cried. Too Hard! they screamed. Well, it's the Deep freakin' Roads, of all places! A place of nightmares for surface dwellers, of deep secrets and certain death. It ain't supposed to be a walk in the park... and it wasn't. Was one of the only places where the lore of the place actually matched up with the area design. That was good. Durlag's Tower had the same harmony between story (lore/backstory) and area design/atmosphere. So did the Severed Hand. So did Dragon's Eye. So did the Luremaster's Castle. All of those dungeons remain to this day as some of the best and most satisfying moments in gaming I've had over the years. They were big, they were challenging, they were atmospheric, and actually finding the way out was itself something of an accomplishment. Games need more dungeons.

Well, there IS the "report" button beneath your avatar. Was considering pressing it myself for this topic. Chose not to,. As for me, I will admit that all the name-dropping in the video pitch (icewind dale, baldur's gate, torment) ended up implying a lot more than it actually said, and my pledge amount reflected that to a large degree. I'm prepared for the not-unlikely event that my own personal expectations are not going to be met, but mostly I'm just trusting that the devs here have a very specific idea of what they want this game to be. Regarding what actual substance the surly Nub up there horked up in the opening post, though: Romances? Fine, in moderation. So long as they're not bludgeoning me with characters of all stripes wanting to hook up the way your typical modern Bioware does, it'll be fine. Housing? I like a place to store my loot. A few storage chests will do nicely, but the housing in Skyrim opened my eyes to the possibility of actually being able to openly DISPLAY my gaudy sets of armor and ostentatiously flaming swords. That, I found, was pretty darn nifty. Eating dinner by the flicker and glow of enchanted weapon and armor alone? Sexy. Full VO? Waste of resources, IMO. This particularly holds true in a game that presents itself in non-cinematic fashion. You've got the abstraction of isometric perspective already so it's not like the characters are going to look like they're physically mute when the camera zooms in, they open their mouth, and nothing comes out, and I HOPE that whatever VO there is, if any, won't be so inconsistently applied that it makes me feel the same might hold true of, say, any protagonist character that may or may not exist. Even so, though, it's been a rare VO where I've felt compelled to listen to all of it in spite of having finished reading the dialogue, though ironically, the ones I remember most clearly DID appear in Icewind Dale. And BG2. Larrel, Kresselack. Irencius. Probably felt that way precisely BECAUSE the games didn't feature full VO, so... goes both ways, I suppose. Bringing in Bioware? In this, I'd say the OP actually has a point, snarky though it may have been phrased. That WOULD be madness. That's probably the one thing that would cause me to withdraw my pledge completely, because not only do I find Bioware games too "streamlined" for my taste these days, it tells me that Obsidian feels they're not up to the job of implementing their own pitch. That move would have "DISASTER!!" written all over it.

Better for whom? I haven't been to a Kickstarter discussion before, but there seems to be a sharp divide between those who prefer different generations of games. I wonder how Obsidian could possibly implement all these opposing ideas. Perhaps it's best, at some point, if the developers just went with what they had in mind. Or the whole thing could become pretty lukewarm for everybody involved. I know I pledged in the hope that all the talk of games like Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, and Planescape Torment carried with it actual WEIGHT when it came to the finer points of the game itself, that it wasn't merely a play on nostalgia to bring in the money without having at least a little bit of substance behind it beyond having an isometric perspective and party-based gameplay. Among those points being characters that existed as individuals in more ways than just on the dialogue screen, as you'd expect individuals to, and that one didn't automagically learn the things that everyone else in the group did simply because they had been accepted into the same troupe as some point in the past. Would suggest that such a mechanism devalues the party-based nature of the game too much for my liking as well as whatever story-related character growth leveling and actual adventuring provide. A party-based game with an isometric perspective is fine, certainly, but as much as I enjoyed Dragon Age Origins, it didn't scratch the itch nearly as well as I was hoping, precisely because of a few irritating "modernistic designs" that they incorporated, and I still find myself going back to the IE games, or Fallout 1 or 2, or ToEE, for that style of game play, rather than Origins. Am hoping Project Eternity doesn't end up lumped into the Dragon Age category of games, to say the least.

Simulation is no more than means of engagement. The truth of the game is the existence of the game, but plot may or may not be game. Plot or character may be no more than rock or sky. Conflict is paramount, not simulation. Live long and Prosper. There is no safety 'Net.

Heh... was under the impression that Grom (the boardie) was actually a little perturbed at the scope/prominence of his cameo in ToB. Can only chuckle to think how much he'll enjoy the fact that Beamdog is evidently expanding on that and using his character's supposed family as a tie-in for a potential BG3 (unverified rumour, that one, so far as I know -- can't be bothered to check right now). Is not more Gromnir, but it's the next closest thing: Gromnir by proxy. Some cameos will never die. Ever.

Have virtually no interest in cyberpunk at all -- there are days when I'd even consider it a strike against a game -- but since its CDPR doing it... will keep an eye on it.

Hmmm... am still incredibly uninterested in the DA franchise at the moment. Am not sure whether that can change, either: the speed with which I went from raving fanboi to a "meh" so complete that I still haven't picked up DA2 and doubt that I ever will still baffles me. It's like Bioware PR has discovered the perfect, most efficient way to repel me as a customer. Never before have I experienced such a profound about-face of interest between one game and its sequel. Is quite amusing, really. Well, maybe not so much for someone looking to sell their product, but on a personal basis I think it's pretty interesting. Not being a particular fan of French accents, I doubt DA3 will be the game to change my mind on that score, but... never say never, and all that rot. If the early review are enough to crack through my current wall of apathy, I might yet check the game out.

Am only marginally curious about this release myself, but anything that diversifies the gaming landscape from the current "cinematic shooter with RPG elements and OTS perspective" is worth supporting, I think. Can't imagine they'll be charging modern-day-release prices for it anyway. The only thing that might prevent me from supporting it -- since I'm halfway onto philosophical grounds already -- would be the Beamdog client. Just how many of these clients do they think I want cluttering up my machine, spraying data about my gaming habits to who-knows-where? Steam, Origin, Beamdog... ok, I honestly can't see a point in keeping Origin on my rig anymore, since Bioware has used up all of my former goodwill and even most of their usefulness to me, but even so, where does it end? As for what I'm actually hoping for from the revamped BG... armies. Granted, this applies more to ToB than BG1, but I never much liked how the armies in Amkethran spawned onto the field in manageable numbers. IIRC Bio mentioned at the time that it had to do with hardware limitations and processing power, but I can't imagine THAT being an issue anymore. Being assaulted by a hundred or so gibberlings might be fun, though. Oh, and a tarrasque. Or at least a dragon. BG1 felt naked with a dragon in it somewhere. Not even necessarily one to fight. BG1 needs a dragon.

Am in pretty much full agreement with that review, though I'm on the "head-scratcher" end of the spectrum WRT the conclusion.

That sums it up for me, too. I suppose it boils down to investment.... as always. Sure, they introduced an unknown element right at the very end of the game, an element that openly contradicted one of the major themes of the series. Sure, they didn't even give Shep an explicit Death Scene (VERY strongly implied, yes, but in my ending I didn't put my fingers into the nail wounds on his hands, nor my hand into the spear thrust in his side, so to speak). And sure, they didn't actually fill us in with respect to any sort of "end state" regarding the other races in the galaxy who are, in my Shep's case, doomed to cannibalizing the other races, as they're all pretty much trapped in the same neck of the woods (Sol). And sure, at the end, nothing you did seemed to make one whit of difference, in stark contrast to what the series had been about up to that point. But at the same time, despite seeing the many, many flaws and holes and contradictions... *shrug* My feeling is that the level of detail and actual exposition in the ending matched my level of investment in the series very well. But for someone who actually cared about how the turians and Asari and everyone else was going to survive without much of the technology that brought them all together in the first place, I can see how the notable lack of answers would be a little off-putting. At this point, my interest in the NEXT Mass Effect game is mostly academic: How will the ME Universe be ordered? Will the geth and quarians still be at war? Will there be Reapers lurking about, to provide a Sauron-like "unstoppable" force when the writers need one? What will Earth look like? Will Commander Shepard and the events of the Mass Effect series even be acknowledge as canon? Beyond that? Enjoyed the series. Will certainly play it again. And this time, I'm going to let that most troublesome of species -- the quarians -- actually survive. Probably. I did find them to be incredibly annoying as a species, after all. Individually quite likable, I thought, but as a society? Trouble. Most games I find I don't like "gaming the ending" or "building a character" because I get too close and end up feeling like shizzle when I screw someone over. Don't know that it will be a problem in this series. For reasons that I'm already aware of but won't go into, the storytelling simply wasn't that compelling in most cases.

Man, I haven't played this game in years... this thread's likely to change, that, too. Always like the commentary.

Aw hell, I never held out any hope that the conflict between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks, or everything going on with the Thalmor (or any other major plot element) would be dealt with in prominent, Bioware B-movie style... rammed down my throat (possibly when I least expect it). Bethesda just doesn't deal with the story in the same way as Obsidian, or Bioware, or CDPR (thank heaven; vive la differenance, an' all that rot). All I'm looking for are differences, they don't have to be major, they don't even have to impact anything else, not really; most of the story that Bethesda puts into their games is imagination-fodder anyway. But they provide that imagination fodder really, really well. Besides, am not entirely sure I'd appreciate major impacts in a game such as Skyrim, truth be told. One of the things that allows me to continue on with my "hundred plus hour with no end in sight" character is precisely the fact that the ramifications for my screws ups AREN'T irreversible. I end up killing Gulum-Ei in the Thieves Guild quest line by accident? I don't happen to have a saved game I want to use? Screw it, just keep going. THAT is where the best story elements take place in a Bethesda game: those little incidental occurrences that provide a WTF, or even an "awwww ****!", moment that, despite it not being a particularly good outcome, I still end up playing through. Major impacts broadcast at me from a mile away? I'm saving, and I'm going to "get the scenario right". Even if it is inherently less satisfying that simply dealing with whatever shizzle happens. At the end of the day, I find a slightly "thinner" story -- with less bighuge C&C moments, maybe, but whose moments I won't automatically game to death -- to be more meaningful than one that's been scripted to hell and back. The scenarios play out more naturally because they're not scripted, and if they feel natural I'm going to identify with them on a more immediate level (ie. me, vs The Protagonist Of The Story That The Developers Have Written And Directed), which in turn allows a modicum of emotion to seep into the experience. Gaming a scenario might be fun, but it's no way to appreciate the scenario itself from the perspective of being IN the moment, which is where any emotion might play out. As I said, though, I still have yet to deal with the rebellion, or Alduin, or any other major plot element, so I'm still reserving my opinion on the specifics of how such things have actually been handled in Skyrim. In principle, am not at all perturbed by reports of less-than-stellar C&C elements in certain types of games, despite C&C being the new fad that EVERY GAME HAS TO HAVE OR IT'LL BLOW CHUNKS. Almost the opposite, really.

Hmm... am actually not all that surprised, really. Not because I think the Imperials are in any way squeaky clean, but because there's been at least two points of lore which suggests the Nords have been right bastages in their own right.... and in exactly the same way as the Imperials are being toward them in the present. Nords come along and drive the Snow Elves/Falmer underground. Nords come along and drive the Forsworn out of their homeland as well. Now the Imperials come along and, under the gentle and loving encouragement of the Thalmor, they finally have a taste of their own medicine. Me, I'm just about 150 hours into my first character and about level 35 or so, and I've yet to decide which side I'm going to pimp myself out to. Both groups seem to engage in more than a little dip****tery.... although I DO make a point of killing every Thalmor I come across. Even at cost of a bounty being placed 'pon my brow.

Am vaguely curious as to how many of those games you've finished, though. Me, I know I like a good deal, but of those few games that I've purchased via digital distribution methods (not just Steam), I have yet to actually play some of them, let alone finish. That's another reason I prefer physical media: the impetus to play is greater for me. Am shlepping around the internet killing time, and I think "maybe a game would be fun... but which game?" and I know there's a Morrowind disk in the drive or a NWN2 box on the shelf next to me and I think "yeah... that one." Am by no means a game hoarder, but if a game that's "out of sight, out of mind" only costs 8 bucks, that's still 8 wasted bucks, and I'll take greater satisfaction from completing a good game than I will from forgetting about a spectacular one. *shrugs* Am not disputing that there are great deals to be had. Just that a purely virtual gaming experience will be worthwhile for everyone. Edit or that acquiring a game for 10 bucks is an end in itself that everyone will appreciate.