[How not to ruin PE with the Beta?]

I've never understood why anyone would ever want to play a beta of anything. Essentially you're providing free QA for a buggy and unfinished game. That's not a privilege, it's a part-time job that you don't get paid for.

[What party selection system is best?]

Wow, there's really 18 people that likes how Dragon Age 2 did it.

That's.. scary, actually.

 

What's wrong with companions having their own houses that they rest at when they're not with you?

 

But if they do just hang around waiting for me, either travelling near me (DAO), or staying in a central location (BG2), or standing in the wilderness where I left them (BG), they shouldn't earn any XP. This is always something that has bothered me. If the companions level up on their own, how are they doing that? How are they earning risk-free experience? It must be risk-free, because they never die when I'm not watching them. And they also never collect loot, so they're obviously not adventuring off on their own. And if there is some means to earn risk-free XP that doesn't break the setting, why isn't the PC doing it?

 

So if you're not there to baybysit everyone, then they should die?

Could. Not should. They could die when they're with me. Why can't they die when I'm not there?

 

Maybe they have a reload button too? Come on, XP and RPG combat in general is utterly unrealistic to begin with. Why use it to limit a player's options unnecessarily in terms of being able to switch companions?

[How much of the story do you want to know and discuss ahead of time?]

All I want to know are the basics and what my character will be expected to know starting the game. Nothing more or less. I don't want my first play through of Project Eternity to be like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2. If my character knows something, especially if it's important to the main plot, I need to know it. Otherwise, my character can't know it without breaking role-playing.

 

Yeah, that was pretty bad design IMO. Since we were given no background story on our character in the beginning of Kotor 2, I was all set on RPing him as a brash young Jedi, and instead he turned out to be a grizzled old general. A pretty big disconnect right there. The player should always be brought up to speed on everything that the character knows.

[Update #7: Non-combat Skills with Tim Cain]

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

What? I think you misread my post. If I'm forced to allocate my points in various ways, of course that limits my options. I honestly can't see what your post has to do with what I wrote...

 

From what I understand, you said that having different pools of ability points for combat and non-combat abilities limits your roleplaying options, no?

Yes, because I can't make a character who's specialized in non-combat skills, an "auxiliary class".

 

Why not? Having combat abilities doesn't make your non-combat abilities go anywhere. You're free to design a pacifist character with good diplomacy, bluff, barter etc. and use those primarily those skills, without ever picking the option to fight. It's the difference between not taking an option because you can't and not taking the option because you choose not to. How is that limiting?

Because other characters of a comparable level will have the same amount of auxiliary skills, (and challenges appropriate for this level will require them) of course! I think you've missed the point. An auxiliary class is a class which excels in non- combat skills. This means, that such a class is better prepared for non- combat challenges than other characters of the corresponding level. Capisce?

 

I'm sure that if you're so inclined, there will be a way to gimp your characters combat abilities to the point where they will be pretty bad at combat. What abilities other people's characters have shouldn't matter. It's a single player game.

[Update #7: Non-combat Skills with Tim Cain]

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

What? I think you misread my post. If I'm forced to allocate my points in various ways, of course that limits my options. I honestly can't see what your post has to do with what I wrote...

 

From what I understand, you said that having different pools of ability points for combat and non-combat abilities limits your roleplaying options, no?

Yes, because I can't make a character who's specialized in non-combat skills, an "auxiliary class".

 

Why not? Having combat abilities doesn't make your non-combat abilities go anywhere. You're free to design a pacifist character with good diplomacy, bluff, barter etc. and use those primarily those skills, without ever picking the option to fight. It's the difference between not taking an option because you can't and not taking the option because you choose not to. How is that limiting?

[Update #7: Non-combat Skills with Tim Cain]

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

What? I think you misread my post. If I'm forced to allocate my points in various ways, of course that limits my options. I honestly can't see what your post has to do with what I wrote...

 

From what I understand, you said that having different pools of ability points for combat and non-combat abilities limits your roleplaying options, no?

[Tropes vs Women]

I don't want to get too deep into this, but IMO there are few things more ridiculous in fantasy games than to have armies, bands of thugs, etc made up of 50/50 men and women. It just looks utterly fake and a result of some overzealous designer trying to make a statement at the expense of good game design.

 

Having said that, there is a place for strong female characters in fantasy, but definitely not in terms of being equal to men vis a vis physical aggressiveness or abilities. See Game of Thrones for good examples.

[Update #7: Non-combat Skills with Tim Cain]

The real question here will be what non-combat abilities you have to trade off against each other. It's all fine to say you want to kill, charm or intimidate when you want to but if everyone can do everything simply by choosing x,y and z then what re-playability will you get except through choosing a melee, ranged or magic character?

 

 

Umm.. How about the actual decisions that you get to make on the spot? When actually confronted with a situation, you don't get to choose X, Y, and Z, you choose X, Y or Z. You can't charm and kill someone at the same time, you just have those options available to you at the moment, not only once at character creation. Then if you want to try something different in another playthrough, you just pick a different option when it comes up.

 

Non-combat skills are gained separately from combat skills. You shouldn't have to choose between Magic Missile and Herbalism. They should be separate types of abilities, and you should spend different points to get each one.

 

Ugh. This will remove everything that made games such as Fallout and Arcanum fun. If I want to make the game hard for myself and tag Speech, Barter and Gambling I should be able to do so. While I understand that this division is exactly in line with D&D (especially 4th ed. D&D), it is kind of limiting to your roleplaying options. My suggestion is that you limit tihe amount of point that you can put into combat skills and allow the players who want to go crazy on other stuff to do so.

 

I've never been able to understand this argument. How in the world does having the ability to approach each situation individually limit your roleplaying options? If anything is limiting, it's being forced to choose a certain character type in the beginning and then being stuck with that one dimensional character throughout the game. It's much better to have a number of options available to deal with any given situation, and then pick the most appropriate one. You still have to choose between gambling, bartering, charming, or killing your way out of the situation, but you get to make that decision on the spot, not 40 hours ago. And if, for instance, you're dead set on playing a character that never gambles no matter what, just don't choose that option when it comes up. Where's the downside here exactly?

[Why I'm not entirely happy with Update #7.]

Even in real life, you can be good at more than one thing. Especially if one has to do with fitness(weapon skills ingame) and the other with, say physics or programming(mental skills).

But you could be even better at fitness if you never took the time away from physical training to go learn physics.

 

There are some teenaged girls somewhere who are really good at calculus. There are also some teenaged girls who are Olympic gymnasts. I'm fairly confident that those two groups don't overlap; the gymnasts don't have time to excel at calculus.

 

There are indeed individuals who overlap having a high intelligence with tremendous physical ability. Look at college athletes for instance. Most of them aren't terribly bright of course, but there are always a few that get straight As at top Ivy League schools while being tremendous athletes and going on to play professional sports.

 

There are not that many people out there who are extremely fit and talented physically, and also not that many people who are highly intelligent, therefore people who combine both are rare indeed, but they do exist. And since we'll be playing exceptional heroes, bolstered by the concept of a rare "strong soul" there is nothing wrong with having a character that's a beast in combat, but also highly persuasive and intelligent.

 

More importantly, realism aside, having a versatile character gives you more role-playing options as a player. I could never understand this desire to have a character that forces you to handle every situation the same way because of you're completely hamstrung by ability choices you made 40 hours ago. I want to be able to approach every decision based on what makes sense in any given circumstance. If someone's nice to me, I want to be charming to them. If someone's rude to me, I want to intimidate them. If someone attacks me, I want to be able to kill them. Making situationally appropriate decisions -- that's true role-playing, not a creating cardboard cutout character that does the same thing every time.

[Update #7: Non-combat Skills with Tim Cain]

No matter what, but please don't make the speech skill a winning buttom. It's time to refine this skill.

 

I liked the way that was handled in Alpha Protocol -- to be truly persuasive you had to gather information on your target and know what approach appeals to him and what doesn't. Just please don't make it a mini game like in Deus Ex 3. The conversations felt so fake and unnatural as the result of that that it literally ruined the game for me to the point where I couldn't even finish it.

[Update #7: Non-combat Skills with Tim Cain]

I agree that non-combat skills are just as important as combat skills, but I'm concerned that by keeping them separate you risk discouraging the use of non-combat skills. Since learning non-combat skills would then have no associated cost in terms of reduced combat effectiveness, this system encourages dabbling.

 

I like my level-up choices to have both benefits and costs, and I don't see costs here. Choosing to specialise in combat should make me less effective at stealth. Choosing to learn both stealth and combat should prevent me from being as good at combat as someone who didn't learn stealth.

 

Having a combination of combat skills and non-combat skills offers the character versatility. Where is the cost for that versatility? Where is the reward for eschewing it?

 

I could not disagree with you more. You should NEVER have to choose between being a strong idiot or a competent wimp. That was the single worst design aspect of Torment, and I'm so glad to see that they're going in a different direction here. I'm sure there are still going to be some tradeoffs, such as points put into stealth limit points put into conversation abilities, choosing between martial prowess and magic, etc. but there should absolutely be two different pools for combat and non-combat skills.

 

Having to choose between combat and non-combat abilities necessarily pigeonholes your character into a certain type, and limits your role-playing options. I don't want to be forced to handle every situation I come across the same way. If I want to kill my way through a group of bandits, I want to be able to do so. If I want to charm my way past a nice guard, I want to be able to do so. If I want to intimidate my way past a rude guard, I want to be able to do that as well. In short I want to be able to pick a situationally appropriate option, without being forced to do the same thing every time by my character sheet. One dimensional heroes that always act the same are boring, predictable, and I don't want to play one.

[1.8 million and counting!]

So who do I have to kill to get into that cult?

[How much of the story do you want to know and discuss ahead of time?]

You guys do realize he asks about the story, not the setting, right? Two very different things.

 

Yep, exactly. Plot specific stuff, not just the setting in general. General knowledge of the world that our character should have in the beginning of the game isn't really a spoiler.

[Going Solo]

Asking "do you want feature X?" is not a very good way to frame the question, since a lot of people will just say "Yes, why not". In order to be even remotely representative or valid the question should be "would you like feature X, at the expense of feature Y and/or Z". Adding benefits for solo play would take away resources from "benefits" for group based play, so no I don't want too see any.

[How much of the story do you want to know and discuss ahead of time?]

So this being a crowd-sourced project and all, the devs have already said in multiple interviews that they are going to talk us a lot more and a lot earlier than they typically do, and are even looking for input from the player base on game features. This poll is concerned with story elements specifically. How heavily do you want the community to be involved in the develepment of the story, and how much do you want to know about it ahead of time?

[Mega dungeon (didn't see anyone make it a poll and Obsidian said it'd be a good idea to do a poll...)]

Otherwise, it will just be a tedious time-sink like the Deep Roads.

 

I thought the Deep Roads actually worked pretty well in the context of the game. They were supposed to be a miserable place and an expedition through them should feel like a long and highly unpleasant affair. I think it can be good game design to create an area that makes a player feel worn out and impatient to get it over with, if that's what the character is supposed to feel while traversing through it. Obviously that has to be done very carefully, but I though the Deep Roads pulled it off. However, by no stretch of the imagination can they be considered a mega dungeon.

[Mega dungeon (didn't see anyone make it a poll and Obsidian said it'd be a good idea to do a poll...)]

This is a pretty biased poll. Where is the option to say, I DO care and I DON'T want a mega dungeon?

[Flexible deadline for a more refined game?]

Bioware used to make great games. Then it started hitting deadlines. Enough said.

[Mega-dungeons. I want one. With tunnels.]

3. Would you still support a mega dungeon if it diverted resources from the main plot/game? My guess is no, but I had to ask.

 

HELL NO! A game can't be everything to everyone. If you want to make a story driven game, make one, if you want to make a dungeon crawler, make another one. Never mind the fact that these concepts tend to appeal to different people, if you try to do both simultaneously, likely neither one will come out terribly well.

 

What kind of sense would it make to take a well-paced, narrative driven game and just crowbar a major timesink in the form a mega dungeon right in the middle of it? It's going to kill the pacing, feel out of place, and likely will be too long and boring for people who play for the story and not nearly long enough for people who like dungeon crawlers.

 

It's a pretty bad idea to begin with, but do all this at the expense of the main plot on top of that? No, no, NO! Might be the worst idea I've seen on this forum thus far.

[Update #5 - Souls, Technology, and Adventuring Companies]

Wow, sounds terrific! Sea monsters and mythical lands almost make it sound like a Jules Verne Victorian kind of setting, which I always thought would be great for an RPG.

 

Just one question though -- have gods been confirmed by men to objectively exist and affect the world, like in the Forgotten Realms, or is it more a question of faith and open to reasonable doubt, like in Dragon Age?

[The Dark Side of Romance]

I could see how this is something that could be HILARIOUS if done as a one-off joke kind of thing, but certainly not part of a full blow romance.

[[Merged] Gods save us another romance thread]

No means that you'd like romances to occur even if for some reason they drained that many resources.

 

That's a pretty questionable premise. That's akin to asking would you want to have different races or a player stronghold "even if for some reason" it meant you couldn't have sidequests or an ending. Romances are fun, take minimal resources without voiceover and make the game more interesting while hardly taking anything away.

[My weapon does nothing!]

Absolute immunities to weapons (which can be switched out) are fine on occasion, but not absolute immunities to entire schools of magic or other similar abilities. For instance in DA2 I took a lightning specialized Anders into the Deep Roads with me, only to find out after the fact that most enemies and the final boss were completely immune to lightning. With no easy way to respec it was either reload and metagame it, or struggle through with a gimped party. Not good design.

[Weapon Balancing]

Yes, please make sure that all weapons are viable choices. When I played Arcanum I had my character use dual pistols, going for a smooth-talking gunslinger type character, and it was horrible. My character was grossly underpowered, every fight against the most basic mobs was a struggle, and finally when I got my ass handed to me by the first boss like 15 times in a row I called it quits and never finished the game. Just out of curiousity I tried that fight with a melee character and beat it easily on the first try.

 

So please -- melee, ranged, or magic -- make sure that all types of characters can hold their own in any fight.

[How realistic is your cup of tea?]

I say, if it comes up, go for it. Don't force anything in for shock effect, but don't sugarcoat anything that seems appropriate to a character or a situation either.