Siamese Cat

Diablo III appears to go for breakable environment. Here are some traps/environment interactions/breakable environments/doors/flammable (electrifiable) objects shown in 19 minute play through. You may like to get a glimpse of wizard breaking pillars with disintegrate spell to make them crash on skeletons here, too. I'm wondering how these physics would work with other abilities of wizard such as slow time and teleport. Then, here, we are talking of a game developed by a smaller team with shorter development period. So, like someone said, these physics element will be most likely to be only bare minimum.

In PnP, the gameplay that repeats killing enemies/looting items is regarded as most primitive sessions and the youngest group enjoy it. However, Blizzard, somehow, made it popular even among adults in CRPG. I can only tell that they appear to be good at making their games addictive, if you ask me. And look at their sales! Many companies tried to copy their formula and some managed to be successful but only at lesser levels. So, probably it is wise of Obsidian to try not to even pretend they are Blizzard and give their best shot with what they are good at especially at a time like this when they are going to release a new version.

If you are unhappy with the additional features by Obsidian, you will have much better luck with Diablo III since it's them who established the ARPG genre, after all.

The game is going to be released on consoles. One of the devs have already come up with an example of FO3. Also, the system lead, who is assured to be a good designer by two of his co-workers, was talking of GTA in his blog entry here. Furthermore, most of us know what the creative lead could do with FR setting. It's too early but how much of the franchise name would end up with being related with the game?

Is it wise to expect the same/similar gameplay with the previous games? IIRC, their gameplays were not something which can be described as "intuitive action gameplay". The name may be only there for marketing reason.

I meant there could be a place for tactics even in the toe-to-toe combat rule design. Obviously, I'm not great fan of the philosophy of "Let's do everything with D20." D20 is basically designed for party-based combats, which, IMO, weakened the toe-to-toe Jedi-Sith battles in SW universe while the plots were focused on Jedi-Sith/Sith-Sith confrontation. This was definitely one of the major weak points of KotORs since it fails to manifest important factors of SW universe, which was my point.

IMO, it seems to be more about balancing, which would become easier when the system is simpler. This is written in an entry of Sawyer's blog. Of course, if you are complaining of anti-climax-ness and/or anti-epic-ness of the boss fight of KotORs, I totally agree with you. KotORs may not be good examples for tactical complexities...the designers need to let the players feel like they are really bad-ass warriors called Jedi. To be true to the original setting, there should be those who are designed to be defeated like paper dolls. However, there is no excuse for the boss fights since they are often Jedi vs Sith, which are considered to be tough fights (Oh, poor Darth Nihiluth, you were such a paper tiger...) Then again, even in the "epic" fights of Jedi vs Sith, the most important thing is that you feel how cool your chosen stances look. For example, a system which allows dramatic counterattack technique/finishing movements which can turn table would be nicer especially when they are balanced well. A situation where a Jedi waits for a chance to counterattack, concentrating his/her force while fending Sith's overwhelming powerful attacks would fit the image of "epic" battle of SW universe. Well, to be honest, I'm not a big SW fan but a system which can manifest such "dramatic" situation would definitely fit the spirit of the movies. Related with this, some people may think it is important for the game system to simulate the reality but I think it is more important to manifest the feel of the given settings and characters in role-playing games and, in that way, the game system itself should be designed. This may be more to do with what Chris Avellone says that there should be points where the narrative and game system are optimized to. In fact, even tabletop games, good designers seem to know how to let their systems manifest these moments from time to time. However, I am not saying that reality is not important in games. Of course, it's important in games with real-world setting and/or strict Sci-Fi. Using the current projects as examples, personally, I like Chain shot ability while I am not so happy with Fury simply because the latter feel more comical than "realistic." Fury suites Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines with super natural twists rather than real-world AP, IMO. Chain shot ability feels right simply because it would make the players feel as if he/she were Billy the kid even if he/she is not good at shooting. Unfortunately, most of presentations of skills in VtM:B felt comical and breaking atmosphere. In any case, I think a elegant role-playing system should be able to manifest these moments where the players feel merged with the settings/characters.

I basically agree with this. Even about tabletop RPGs, masters better imagine how the game they are dealing with is actually played rather than staring at the abstract numbers... Even the progressions should be "experienced" during the game plays.