Wombat

Well, I cannot help it but what I'm saying is just simple. BIS/Obsidian/Troika are risk-takers but these good-willed features tend to end up with "unpolished products" especially to the eyes of reviewers. As for Bioware, even Ray Muzyka admits that talented designers are not happy with giant projects. So, I think even Bioware is probably trying to develop smaller games to which ambitious designers are assigned in appropriate market. Now, if I haven't taken the info terribly wrong, Dungeon Siege III belong to a giant project which expect its sales mainly from consoles, where the both reviewers and players are unforgivable to "unfinished products". So, while I'd like to see good content such as interesting characters, dialogues, story-telling devices, and setting, which relatively doesn't require subsequent bug-fixing, I won't insist on other features which may not be important to the market. Of course, the OP can be taken as just requiring universal physics which may become repetitive later in the game. However, I guess I just said it by myself: To avoid the feel of repetitions, Obsidian must need to build a system which is hard to be warn out and/or unique maps which add some aspects with reasonable learning curves for the players. It must be a tough job but they need to maximize the effects of their efforts so that they will be well presented in the final product. After all, some players may actually not buy games based on their idiosyncratic insistence to a certain features, the majority will probably be happy with just enjoyable experience as a whole. Well, in my case, too, I tend to ask about details but I understand "trade-offs." I won't buy Storm of Zehir but I'm going to buy Alpha Protocol eventually based on my personal priority.

Bioware doesn't take too much risks. On the same format such as Infinity Engine and Aurora Engine, I find that BIS/Obsidian tend to differentiate maps by implementing unique elements while Bioware tend to stick to build a solid basic rules and differentiate maps basically focusing on unique opponents. For example, in IWD2, there were some implementations unique to a certain maps such as explosive barrels and alarming drums. Also, there was a plan which lets the party divide into sneak team and attack team, letting the sneak team deal with a system which opening the main gate while attack team is attracting attentions (With multi-player implementation, this may be quite interesting). Also, there were maps which required time attack and special purposes such as destroying a certain construct. Sounds in theory, doesn't it? The downer for this is that it is tough to standardize the qualities of each map and, in fact, IWD2 suffered from the inconsistent qualities of each map. So, you can easily see why Bioware won't even try to do such kind of implementations. The same can be said to Knight of the Old Republic II, where party members are separated and had to act on their own, for example. Now going back on topic, basically, I admit that I miss the uniqueness of each map and feel sad when I see shooters have more unique maps which require a certain level of tactics with optional objectives than games on NWN 2 series. I'd like to seem some game-play related implementations unique to each map, which can be combined with physics or any other implementations to modern systems, too. That said, while I'd like to see unique maps with interesting implementations which increase tactical depth, I hope Obsidian will manage to keep the quality of each map to a certain standard. Realistically, it would be tough considering the current standard for both graphics and polished game-plays.

Honestly, I don't know what Sega expected from Alpha Protocol. Even if they just wanted to pick up their money quickly, the delay didn't make sense. Likewise, if Sega genuinely expected high sales for games on the format of Alpha Protocol/Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines/Deus Ex in the current game market*, then, they have terribly wrong business sense (which is not surprising if the leaded doc is genuine, though). Really, it puzzles me how the decision-making about Alpha Protocol went this wrong. At least, it doesn't seem to be regarded as commercially successful. In fact, according to the teaser trailer, at least, Square Enix doesn't seem to want to mention Alpha Protocol. In any case, blaming any group involved in it won't make things better especially when we are left in the dark. Hopefully, Obsidian have learned some lessons and experiences. * I'm not saying these games were bad but it would be tough to sell them in the current market. Definitely, they should have known better than that.

I liked messing around with the gravity gun in HL2 (Straight forward shooters are not my cup of tea.) but Bethesda was trying to implement it in Oblivion but they seem to have given it up since they couldn't make it work properly even for the sand-box style action game. Thought the details are yet to be revealed, since Dungeon Siege III is most likely to be focused on hack'n slash game-play, I think these sandbox playground aspects will be just mildly introduced. Troika used an early alpha of the engine. Besides, if you look at promo videos they made early in development, the physics are curiously much more robust than they ended up being in the finished product. I'd imagine that had to do either with cut content for the sake of nonexistent QA, or the emphasis on stat-based gameplay. Yea...these things went through my mind while I was writing the part you quoted. In either case, it hugely depends on the final presentation of the game-play as I mentioned in the above case.

It would be fun when puzzles are done well. From my point of view, the problem is that, although I'm not a great fan of Bioware, I cannot but admit the puzzles by Bioware much better than Obsidian/BIS's. If I take puzzles/traps in a broader meaning, indeed, In IWD series, the "traps" are mainly expressed in the context of combat game-plays in a form of ambushes/reinforcements, which was not bad at all. Another type of memorable "puzzles" by BIS/Obsidian is carefully woven to plots like in the case of Planescape: Torment (Some people called it one of the best adventure game). That said, I cannot remember good mini-game puzzles from Obsidian/BIS, which is one of the reasons why I was reluctant when Sawyer began to talk about mini-games. In fact, Obsidian mini-games don't seem to be so popular..., which may change, though, since, whether they admitted it or not, they hired a casino game designer for Fallout: New Vegas. I wonder if they have such resources for DSIII. I read some of DS reviews. Trap spells, indeed, seem to exist and can be interesting...well, I have to repeat...if they are done properly. Personally, I'd like to see puzzles which are nicely interwoven into environments, characterizing each map, rather than puzzles which are (feel) independent and abrupt, but they must require much craftmanship and time...

I see...Valve thing, I mean, environmental puzzles. Indeed, Diablo 3 seems to be going to implement some environmental puzzles and the engine seems to be quite capable of dealing with puzzles, considering the planned Tomb Raider spin-off. Now back to Dungeon Siege 3, E3 reviews reported the usage of PhysX but, outside of immersion factor such as rag dolls and the feel of distance both in terms of graphic and sound effects, only one reported merit to the game-play of it is the vista, which was replaced from mini-map. It would be fun if it adds depths, being tactical factor, and/or, as puzzles independent from combat. However, to be honest, I wonder if Obsidian has related resources. Indeed, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, used source engine but I didn't see the merit of physics there. Also, even about traditional puzzles, outside of physics, I don't think Obsidian was good at implementing puzzles, compared with Bioware.

This is probably yet another British gutterpress thingy but I came across to an article called "iPad users 'are the selfish elite', claims survey."

The designers of Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning are trying to combine ARPG game-mechanics with the setting in various levels. Likewise, some PnP games have deep backgrounds setting which can help GMs and players build their own sessions/campaign. While there are huge amount of info about settings, there are always rooms left for imagination of their imagination. For example, Glorantha is one of the most detailed setting with systematizing various religions from different cultures. Indeed, there is plenty of ripoffs from existing cultures but the knowledge of the staff is not comparable with that of any other group. In fact, if you find which setting is which culture, you must be pretty knowledgeable in histories, mythologies and religions. It is not a surprise that Ken Rolston worked on Rune Quest, whose major setting was Glorantha, since I think he is one of a few people who carry this DNA from PnP world to CRPG realm. Of course, some people are just O.K. with slaying "monsters" and collecting phat loot but, personally, I'd like to see the setting/stories/characters that have more depth if the players try to look into. Here, I'm not even trying to argue that the content is more important than game-play but they can complement each other. IIRC, there are friendly vodyanoi group and hostile one. Friendly one worshiped the Lady of the Lake. Fairly put, Lavecraft "used" existing mythologies and folklore to build his/their setting and CD Projekt (Sapkowski) did the same thing, too. In fact, could we even imagine a setting which doesn't have any similarity from anything in our world? You could even blame Romans for "ripping off" Greek mythology. BTW, yes, Glorantha had heavy ripoff from Cthulhu mythos. The image below is totally irrelevant to the topic but it's cute.

Well, you can always cherry-pick. I tried to reduce the list but all of them are classic.

I guess the reason why I cannot stop visiting here is funcroc...he/she/it seems to be really good at finding news, which even beat some news site... Sadly, I guess I developed the tendency to wonder how they may look to the majority than to myself, nowadays. However, to my eyes, the screenshots are nice, not only in terms of the quality but also its keeping the atmospheric style, too, which is another DNA ever since IWD series, as I see it. I guess crypts began to be almost the necessity in BIS/Obsidian hack'n slash games. I don't know much about Slavic folklore but, if Obsidian include Japanese taste like samurai-ish ghost warriors, they might be interested in consulting some stories such as The Tale of the Heike (historical), Tales of Moonlight and Rain, Konjaku Monogatarishū and Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things (Probably too late, though). The samurai ghost warrior reminds me of that in The Story of Mimi-nashi Houichi (Houichi the Ear-less), which is related with the Tale of the Heike, in Kwaidan. Alternatively, some Nou flavor may be nice.

You are right.

That's what I hope but Slavic mythology itself seems to be based on folklore which rather lack consistency. It worked for the Witcher for building the unique atmosphere, though.

I believe that's what they are trying to do in DSIII. There are many CRPG companies but, as far as I know, there are almost no companies which try to let the personalities of the players reflect to the story/character development to the level of Obsidian. As long as Obsidian keep this part, I'd keep an eye on their role-playing games even if the game-play may not be entirely my cup of tea. To be honest, I didn't know this one till I play the Witcher. They may be just trying to increase the variety but I'd like to see a solid and atmospheric world setting, considering Mask of the Betrayer.

Rather, I cannot but feel some odd decision-making either by Obsidian and/or Sega about which projects should have priority. If the so-called leaked doc of Sega is genuine, it's laughably surprising how they can be wrong in choosing promising projects. I feel some things are terribly wrong in the hierarchy but fans will stay blinded, helplessly guessing what is actually happening behind the closed door. So, instead, I'd go back to the OP. IMO, probably, the fruit for these years of canceled project is Onyx engine, which seems to be capable of dealing with both more-than-decent graphics and mulch-platforms. According to what is revealed so far, it may also be compatible with various game-plays especially with the said smooth camera shifts. If it is capable of realizing natural game-plays for both console game-pads and PC keyboards and mouse, then, I think there would be quite a good opportunity for Obsidian. I guess I was not alone thinking like this since even Bioware seems to be going for similar tactics with Dragon Age 2, by providing different game-plays for console and PC platforms. Yea...I'm poking around in this respect at Dungeon Siege III boards. Onyx engine seems to be promising but I'm wondering how flexible it is in terms of game-plays and how much forethought is implemented to it. If the engine can satisfy both action and tactical gamers while letting the both game-plays feel native, it can reduce the risk of multi-platforms, means, leaving either group unsatisfied like in the case of Alpha Protocol. As long as the presentation such as game-plays and graphics are good, I think, at least, some people would appreciate Obsidian's originality in the area of content since people finally began to notice that big RPG makers hadn't been offering "meaningful" choices.

Back on topic, the description of Dragon Age 2 combat here, which I stumbled upon today, seems to be near to what I imagined. Just for sure, I'd write down my idea in this thread. 1. (A) controllable PC(s) with uncontrollable AI NPCs. (The feature reported by multiple sources) 2. (A) controllable PC(s) with AI NPCs which can be indirectly controlled by the player(s) through generic command such as offensive/defensive/use items. 3. (A) controllable PC(s) with AI NPCs which can be directly controlled through pause. (Exactly shown in DA2 example above) 4. Infinity Engine style control under the top-down view. (This is most "radical" for an ARPG and probably crazy.) Of course, if any idea above (especially the 4th one) is far from the format the designers planning, they should rather ignore my opinion here. For example, Valve made a first person mode for Alien Swarm but, probably, due to the apparent clunkiness, they wisely didn't include it as a choice chosen from default menu. Likewise, if the designers don't feel the implementation is not good enough for mass market, I don't think they should make it easily accessible especially considering the "reputation" of Obsidian. For, after all, as long as Obsidian keep their originality and quality in the content area, I can overlook if the game-plays are made for other people.

That's an interesting combination. Different personalities represent various frames: Schilling offering a view of an average (?) MMO player, Rolston goes for his environmental story-telling, letting the players to "discover" the world, Salvatore trying to make unified background stories/settings connected to the game-play, while McFarlane overview more direct graphic related game-experience. It's interesting to hear these people interacting but, as usual to this kind of ambitious project, I hope they would manage to release the game.

Hmmm...I haven't played them in multi-player. When Diablo series were popular, I played demos and was left with a tons of question marks. I simply couldn't figure out why they seem to be so fun to the others. I guess I played it all wrong then. This may be related with many other cases such as the recent example of the view of shooter players vs that of RPG players to Alpha Protocol. Designers have to deal with the expectations/framing of the players since their games should capture players as soon as the players start playing it, or, at least, the designers should keep players' attentions while they are still trying to figure out the game-play. I think I was much more patient than recent gamers about Diablo (clones), though. I remember even a CD Projekt designer was trying to figure out how to implement tutorial of the original Witcher without putting off the players years ago and was saddened when I read quite many players' comments complaining of the introductory part of AP.

As for fatigue issue, yea...the screen is getting sharper and clear in smaller devices. However, since touch screen is getting standardized in portable devices and, as long as we have alternatives such as Android + the makers of our liking, I have nothing against the input method. Rather, other methods tied with a certain devices would make yet another division in both developing and playing, which is my main concern.

Rather, it was a surprise for me that they sold well with that graphics. I had kept an eye on the development through their forum and I felt it was probably a possible few weaknesses for sales. Although the content is not my cup of tea, Bioware means business. I'm inclined to go for stylish 2D with some special effects rather than clunky 3D arts.

As for touch-control, I don't disagree but personally, I'm not a great Apple fan due to the restriction on both software and hardware and I'd like to see new gen games shift to mulch-platforms freed from restrictions to a certain devices. If you like the setting of Final Fantasy: Tactics that much, you may like Tactics Ogre, too. I haven't played the former but Yasumi Matsuno played the central role in designing them. Judging from what I gathered on the net, they are common in the style where human emotions and political situations interwoven to make some bloody story of half historical and half epic feel (By epic, here, I mean something akin to Kriemhild's blood-thirsty revenge).

Not news, I guess... As for the presentations, I wonder why they use a term "box" instead of factor/element although such kind of concept had been existed back in days of Planescape: Torment. About the NV lead creative, John Gonzalez, I don't know his works and its one of the factors I feel unsure about what to expect from his writings. Now the Brotherhood of Steel...well...we were able to guess that much by ourselves when we heard they are in.

I like to think we're more polite than others like say, the codex. Rather, for games which are supported by people at Codex, the small amount of time lag shouldn't be a problem. Also, IIRC, they were not happy with Diablo and its clones...

I tried it with the demo, which was downloaded/installed in a blink (!) on my virtual environment. It functions and probably save my fingers from hurting but it doesn't save the game from the familiar monotonous feel. Back to the old time, I tried Diablo and quite many of their clones but, somehow, I couldn't make myself go further than demos. The game-play is not for me, I guess.

I don't know how other people found it but, to me, it didn't make so much difference once swarmed by enemies...

Theoretically, it can be translated into shooters as long as they have system which track hits on each body part but making various animations must be demanding...