Tale

I'm the one who moved it here. I think #1 is my favorite plot hook.

That's an absolute classic. But sadly off-topic.

He was just all kinds of creepy. Visas level creepy. Yeeeeeeeees.

I think you guys might be at an "is not" / "is so" stalemate. I'm not a giant fan of romances. The Handmaiden romance worked for me because it was more implied. Visas creeped me right out. Morrigan worked for me because I'm a Claudia Black fanboy. But most others just leave me feeling creepy if I pursue them or like I'm missing content if I don't. I also didn't care to see Dwarves and Elves, but they're going to be in the game. It wasn't a big deal to me and I think the degree of my concern is similar on this subject.

Somewhat. I would like to see it be more like them than the RPGs of today. However, I hate the final boss fights of many IE games. Maybe I was too young to really understand them, but I hate resorting to cheese. And if I feel that cheese is a more appropriate strategy than the strategies I've been using the entire game prior, then I feel something is broken. I think the strategy I heard for Sarevok was to try to lure his lieutenants one-by-one, then do as many summons as possible while plucking away at range. Thankfully PS:T, Fallout, and Arcanum let me talk to final bad guy to death, so I didn't have to deal with it. I think the worst offenders were probably the Bioware titles, so I'm hopeful.

I like your idea. On the topic of specialization, I'd like to see variety. Build your guy to be a glass cannon. Another build (or class) that's a melee caster. And another that may be a little of both, but still effective.

If the author doesn't think it's a fit for the character there is. There are entire character archetypes that are somewhat at odds with what people wish to see from romances and there's no reason to exclude those, or similar, ideas. And there's even less reason to subvert the character concept just for the purpose of supporting a romance.

I like compromise. I tend to enjoy ranges. Some bandits scale 1-3, etc. They don't have to scale 1-20. It lets the bandits be relevant for a little longer. And allows enemies to overlap as you transition from one "tier" to another. Of the choices, I guess "kill it with fire" is the closest.

I like the idea of not shying away form the issues, but the wording of the poll implies that "brutal realism" is horrific. Like you can't walk down the street without seeing hobos chowing down on one another. Realism isn't defined by taboo. However, surrealism sounds the most interesting. Exploring different cultures is fascinating enough that I don't have to debate between the other choices.

Depending on the period, it might not even pierce the plate armor without the shield.

Physics (like Havok), sound, even AI (like Euphoria), or speedtree, etc. There's this one video middleware that practically everyone uses. The guys behind it must be rich enough to run a small country by now.

I don't play non-casters anymore, not since Neverwinter Nights, so my opinion here probably isn't worth squat. Which is why I'm glad I don't actually have one. I see the value either way. Improving tactical options for physical characters is a concept that's nice for making them more interesting to play for people who do really want to play them. But there's value to nostalgia, especially here, and emphasizing the distinction of physical compared to magical that would be served by the classic 4 attacks in a round, a small handful of actions, and leave it at that. Even in tactics, it's nice to have characters you don't have to micro every round so you can focus on the back row. So I'm torn.

The 'player housing' is meant to serve as a place for your party characters to hang out when you're not using them according to the update #2. But that's only if we hit that goal. *checks the goal* Yeah, it'll happen. But I suspect there's an alternative system in mind just in case. And if it's in mind, they might include both.

Darn, I had hoped I accomplished an understanding. That the core concern was enemies having difficulty or ease beyond justification, making the setting appear silly.

Whoah. That is surprising. And informative. I never even considered middleware costs attached to it.

I don't agree that overlevelling or underlevelling makes the combat system asymmetrical. The rules still all work the same way - you're just sometimes facing opponents stronger or weaker than you. But then we've accepted that the PC can hit vastly harder (and more regularly) than his enemies. Aside from the issue of friendly fire and status effects, I'm not sure I recognize the distinction unless you're looking under the hood. The functional results are achievable either way. Problem is, I guess, the word symmetry, but the OP didn't have many options - aside from 'rules based system' which might not be very informative. The idea here isn't about fairness or equality, but rather consistency. Essentially, opposing this idea is kinda opposing its source material as well. I imagine, but never really looked, that the infinity engine games fudged stats rather often. But whether or not they did, they became too swingy at times and while it wasn't outright objectionable, it was one of the rough edges. I'll say this though. If an enemy is strong, he should have a reason for being strong. No sickly beggers that are a fine match for seasoned adventurers. I can't disagree more. Even the classics were not about how reality works. The abstraction was too great for that. The characters should understand the literals, but the players have long argued and struggled on it. I can see value in easy translation of data for the player sake. But that's achievable with a limited asymmetry. If you're missing the target by 5 points even on a 20 roll, you can figure out just how much more skilled the character needs to be to make a hit either way.

I don't agree that overlevelling or underlevelling makes the combat system asymmetrical. The rules still all work the same way - you're just sometimes facing opponents stronger or weaker than you. But then we've accepted that the PC can hit vastly harder (and more regularly) than his enemies. Aside from the issue of friendly fire and status effects, I'm not sure I recognize the distinction unless you're looking under the hood. The functional results are achievable either way. I can agree that friendly fire and status effects should be as relevant for players as enemies, but I'm just questioning the importance of saying that a monster should be level 2 instead of 5 if the important part is that he has 7 hit points and can hit a 15 by rolling 6.

I'm still not sure where I fall in this debate. I like the idea, but I don't like the idea that a single encounter against 6 guys should end up being a 50/50 shot unless the opposition are played beneath their abilities. And a single encounter against 1 guy ends up totally dominating him. You can do things like underleveling or overleveling encounters to adjust the balance, but then you've stopped being symmetrical. I have played games where there was total symmetry and enjoyed them, but they ended up playing best as one encounter per day affairs.

Maybe it's just a bad example, but I don't need your average shopkeeper fidgeting randomly just to make the dialogue more flavorful. If there's a point to characterizing the NPC through his behavior and manner, yeah. Shifty eyed merchants better be a quest hook where I find out just what he's hiding. If he's just there so can sell off 50 daggers, I don't really care.

I did like it in KOTOR 2. However, I also hope Obsidian doesn't repeat it. It worked for the novelty value, it's not something a whole lot of developers are trying to do or have done. But it's a violation of player ownership over their own character. We're in the dark about our character's past because our character hasn't bothered to reveal it to us. Then I'm not so sure it's my character.

No it doesn't. The Beamdog client is optional. If that's true, that's good news to me and I stand corrected Everywhere I search, I couldn't find any other alternative of buying the game except from Beamdog service. Its not even on GOG, unless something changed? It is only available from Beamdog, yes. But they've made using the client for it optional. Of course, but - correct me if I'm wrong - these are digital distribution platforms for each individual publisher, so unless Obsidian becomes a division of EA (*shiver*) Project Eternity on Origin is out of question Correction, Origin, Steam, and Uplay are platforms belonging to the company, but not exclusively for. Origin releases games from other publishers currently, and Ubisoft has announced plans to do the same with Uplay. Battle.net is still Blizzard only, however.

No it doesn't. The Beamdog client is optional.

The thing I'd take issue with here is the assumption that, even if the majority will be straight males, that they necessarily want titillation. I think between minorities and straight males that are looking for something else, the overall majority could easily wish for different. Where I come from, many straight males have other priorities and wish for outfits on characters that make sense.

I don't hate traditional races, but I would like to see more creativity.

I dislike cinematic. And am quite disinterested in the cutscene style of conversation. It's a whole mechanism by which you stop being a character and actor in the world and instead become a hostage to the conversation of two people, one of whom is supposedly your persona, but you're staring at his face.