Tale

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.

Let's shy away from discussing other posters and keep to the topic presented.

1) Beamdog has their own distribution service that provides supplemental income beyond development. 2) Cleaning up the code base and adding a few new areas and characters is probably a smaller development project, thus requiring less investment, than a whole new game.

I have taken on gods, I have seen the end of civilizations, I have flown ships across the universe and back, I have done all this and more in games, I am tired of the great battle is your ending and then leave. No, I want a lot more closure than some stupid battle (DA2 anybody?!?!) taking on the big bad. I want to feel a little closure in my choices I made. That can come the setting, not the character. Closure only makes sense on things that actually close. If game 1 takes place in the east and game 2 takes place in the west, then the east can close. But the companions you bring east to west have yet to do so. Timmy goes on to mayor the town and die in his bed at 87. That's closure. Timmy goes to school next summer, and then... well, after that it's up in the air because he's appearing in game 2. That's not a closing. Lying to me and saying Timmy becomes the mayor and dies happily in his bed when in game 2 he ends up dying during the middle of the adventure, that's not tolerable. How is that distinct from riding into the sunset?

Guns. Piffle, the weapon of untrained thugs. Murder! Not like magic, that requires special training. Never go wrong with magic. That weapon of gentlemen and soldiers. Not trying to derail. It's a debate I can see coming up in a setting with both magic and guns.

The ending doesn't need to be the epilogue. You can have a personalized ending in how you approach the finale battle, or even more interestingly, in who you fight for the final battle. I don't need my character to retire to one of 15 choices just to make me feel like he accomplished something. And that's kind of what I see epilogues being for. What they do when you stop playing them, how they retire.

If they're wanting to build a franchise, epilogues need to be a little more subdued. You can't become the Emperor after one game, can you? Not when you'll be picking up in game 2. And saying they don't count like happened with Dragon Age bothers me. Too much detail might be too restricting for the following title. I'm entirely satisfied with "ran off into the sunset with his trusty Kobold sidekick, Knipchin." Just let me know everyone went off to further adventures. But if they're planning on doing different regions with each game? If something is left behind and not going to be part of the next game, yeah, give me closure on that.

I'd be interested to see Gaider on it. See what he pulls out with old-school objectives. He definitely aimed for mature themes in Dragon Age 1 and 2, it just got sidetracked. However, the logistics of it would be too troublesome for a serious interest.

I wasn't around in those days, but I have no shame about lying and saying that I was. Wait, I'm doing this wrong.

Can someone please translate? Avellone once responded to Visceris with "you don't care if people lose jobs over a game?" As evidence of how he could aggravate people.

Had it spoiled earlier, glad to see more official word. Yay.