Wrath of Dagon

I've thought about this some more, and I can generalize this further. A game has presentation, content, and game mechanics. In an RPG, I want the order of priority to be content, game mechanics, presentation. As a counter point, in a shooter I want game mechanics, presentation, content.

Well, that's what we got AP for (crosses fingers)

The biggest problem with Oblivion I thought was the over-reliance on repetitive dungeons. If they got rid of those, that's already a huge step forward.

I'm still hoping there'll be some quests based more on dialog, I think they mentioned more extensive dialog trees before.

Not yet, but they're planning to release a lot more info before the game comes out. Personally I think we already know enough, but they got to do the marketing.

Origin is a background you pick at character creation, like a dwarven prince or a human mage, they haven't been very specific. Actually I believe it's a combination of background and class. Then you play through a prequel, which is unique to every origin. Once you're done with that, you join the main story, the beginning of which they seem to be demoing in trailers and videos. As far as the villain, defeating the Darkspawn (a locust like enemy) will be the main goal of the game, though there will be other twists and turns. No multiplayer right now at all. 4 party limit, and I believe up to 20 enemies at a time. The big battles seem to be only in cutscenes.

Looks very impressive actually. From what they show, doesn't seem like you can have much of a dialog with NPC's though, still looks like Oblivion dialog.

Not really, you're just repeating the same thing over and over anyway. On easy (or normal really) you're just repeating it less, getting through the encounters quicker, and feel more powerful. Edit: Plus you can put your party on AI control, and don't have to micromanage.

The battles seemed a lot more tactical. The battlefield was bigger compared to your army, and there were lots of terrain features you could exploit to maneuver your forces and gain an advantage. Usually the battles lasted longer thus allowing for more tactical battles. Also I've experienced a lot of different situations during the battles and had to adapt my tactics. In RTW the battlefields seemed smaller and more featureless, and battles usually came down to the armies rushing each other and battles being over very quickly. I could pretty much just pin the enemy in the center with my heavy units and hit him in the flanks with fast units and do that in almost every battle.

Yes, an RPG can be built around global choices and consequences (which is Iron Tower's approach) but I don't consider that essential for all types of RPG's. I do think that even a relatively linear story driven RPG must provide at least localized choices for the player, else I don't really see where roleplaying comes in.

All these battles we've recently had over ME vs KOTOR in the wrong threads got me thinking. Most people don't seem to react to games the same way as myself. I think a few years ago I was pretty well aligned with the mainstream, but not any more. What do you look for in an RPG? I look for interesting quest design, and more generally I find my favorite games have story told through gameplay. Specific game mechanics don't matter so much, so long as they are at least somewhat entertaining.

Any one else think that battles in MTW1 were a lot better than in RTW?

I'm coming to the conclusion that D&D combat is very boring, and should be played on easy to get through it quickly. Perhaps there's an interesting way to implement it, but I haven't seen it. I'll take whosever's word that ToEE was good, but why isn't anyone else doing it if it was possible?

Did anyone say there would be breakable environments?

They're not by a long shot, at least play ME before you make that claim. As far as your other games, I can't raise them on a pedestal because I haven't played them, and MotB I didn't get far enough to make a judgment. Anyway, that's all I want to say on this, since it's way off topic.

Well, you're the one who said standard X-Y-Z fetch quest, so I assume you know what standard means. Anyway, got to go, I'll continue later.

May be Bloodlines was better, I don't know, haven't played it. The best quest I've played was Peragus in K2, because it was non-standard. But those are pretty rare.

Sorry, I've noticed that too. As soon as people quit attacking me, I'll get off the subject.

So there were some standard fetch-the-"X, Y, and Zed" quests involved, amazing. Also, you did not have to "deal with the refugees" if you did not want to, there that much to "explore," and I can only remember ONE "Sith patrols" that was not DEAD. OK, what are the non-standard quests? I didn't say it was amazing, I said it was interesting. What's your point anyway?

Yes, they are crushing, so many people without any taste.

Same here, it got me into RPG's, and it's still awesome. I've replayed it several times since then. I disagree, K2 is better in some ways but worse in others, overall they're about equal to me. Yes, so what? There are a few "important decisions", unfortunately most of them have big flashing signs saying "Make Big Important Decision Here" instead of being organic to the story. They're not enough to make the game anyway, and the rest of the stuff isn't relevant if the content isn't there.

I didn't say that at all. You said KOTOR was developed for graphics whores because it had 3D graphics. Succeeded in making a good game.

This for example. Edit: And this: You didn't just walk to find the crashed pod. You had to find out there was a crashed pod, obtain a Geth uniform or papers, go to the lower level, deal with the refugees, and finally explore the area while fighting off the Rathghouls and dealing with Sith patrols. It's these kinds of ignorant and dismissive statements from you that make it very difficult to discuss anything. Obviously anything I say was fun you'll just come back and say was boring and cliche just so you can be right.

Fine, you can call anyone who wants to play 3D games graphics whores, but they succeeded with KOTOR and failed with ME, which is what matters. I'm not saying graphics aren't important, it's when they're prioritized over everything else there's a problem, and the quote I gave is proof of that.

Let me guess, you were the chairman of your schools debate club? Debate to you means poo-poing someone else's points while making none of your own.