FlintlockJazz

No New Game+ please. It's artificial and more for console RPGs (not an attack on consoles, just that's where this feature is used, not in PC games). Having an artificial limit applied to a game where your choices should matter does not fit. I do not get why people would want such a feature when the game should already offer replayability via alternate character classes.

I want it to have it's own atmosphere and feeling. Of course, the kickstarter was sold to us on the premise that it would be like the old IE games, but that does not mean it can't make it's own themes and style, especially since the IE games themselves were so different to one another. As to the discussion about white, black and grey morality: having a white and black morality is very limiting, and is usually the morality of the developers or D&D alignment system type of morality, and I often feel like I am being preached to in such games that I must adhere to someone else's concept of right and wrong. On the other hand, grey choices are often perceived as requiring no easy answer, that everything must come at a cost blah blah blah and often feel forced too, trying to make you choose between two things only because it's been cornily set up to be like that, see Virmire choice as an example of this bollocks. This is not what grey choices in my mind should be, rather they should be a choice of what you or your character believes to be the right thing.

I like it. The shoulder pads are a bit much but not too bad and isn't a woman-only problem. Pretty damn good in fact.

I was wondering if someone saw that. I'll leave THIS here. http://janpospisil.blogspot.cz/2013/05/in-semi-defense-of-boobplate.html I think the comment at the end is worth reading and sums up my own feelings on the matter. The article itself suffers too much from assumptions, lack of understanding and outright incorrect facts to be able to make a good case either way.

As spudud and Lephys have said sapience is not sentience and is believed to be only held by humans. A cow can be aware of its own existence but lacks the capability for abstract thought that sapience brings. A cow would not understand that the leather armour you are wearing is the skin of its kin nor would it understand that staying in that field will eventually lead to it being taken to a slaughterhouse and killed even if it sees other cows being taken and not coming back, but kill a member of its herd in front of it and it will realise its life is in danger and get upset. Most animals have a sense of self preservation in order for the species to survive, otherwise they would die off when threatened with one that does. Humanity's success comes from its ability to deduce possibilities that they have not seen. Until a cow sees a two-legged kill another cow with that axe thing it does not understand that an axe can be used to kill it, while a human can look at a rhino for the first time and realise that not only could the horn be used to skewer him but that if he was to somehow break it off he could use it himself to kill his neighbour Ugg and take his woman, or that the guy carrying a knife might be up to trouble. Apes can be taught tool use beyond their normal capabilities, but only if they are shown it, humans can work out new uses for themselves. EDIT: In short, humans can work out consequences and connect the dots, a cow cannot unless it sees it and even then it only makes the link if it the consequence occurs immediately.

Heh yeah she might think she looks sexy in that but it all it would do would be to get stabbed in her neckline and then raped (if she's lucky she'll be dead before the raping starts). People have claimed that looking sexy would help distract your enemy but really it would just guarantee a more horrific death.

Which is why I was using the caveat sapient, if they are not sapient then it wouldn't matter since it would be just like cows. If a sapient species didn't care that people would want to wear your skin as armour then it shows a lack of self preservation on their part. If they don't care then there would have to be a reason as it implies lack of rational though, and humans themselves might have issues with wearing something that they had just been talking to five minutes before. Take the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, they have sapient talking animals that want to be eaten and will talk to you while being ate, but thats because they were engineered that way, and some people found it to be quite horrifying. Essentially if dragons are sapient then I think it will be a missed opportunity to ignore this potential ingame debate like most other games do. I think it could bring more to the game to have such things brought up than just ignoring it as always.

Yes, because then my "evil" PCs would have a valid reason for butchering elves other than they suck.Ah but if your characters are "evil" then you don't want it to be fine because then they get to be vicious, scary to others in their elf-armour and those pesky good guys will be at a disadvantage when fighting you because they won't wear elf-armour!

And if they are as smart as cows? Leatehr armor is fine but dragon scale is not? Because dragons are more inteligent (maybe, maybe not)? Kinda odd to say "If you're inteligence score is greater than 5, it's ok to skin you. Otherwise it's not" Thats how it works in real life. We skin animals because they are not considered sapient but get upset if someone skins a person. In a world in which multiple sapient species coexist then skinning one another would probably not go down well. Again, why is skinning a sapient dragon often considered okay but not elves in most settings? Is it possibly because elves look like us while dragons do not? I would like to see some sort of reaction from dragons on this, a questioning of the morality of it. If a society had no qualms with skinning sapient dragons then dragons, as a sapient species with an interest in self preservation, would likely consider said society as evil and fear being hunted down and flayed for profit. I mean, would you trust being around someone who has no qualms skinning and wearing you?

Well I was talking about fully sapient dragons otherwise it would be no different from wearing any other animal so at least as smart as a human. If elven skin bestowed protection against magic would it be fine to skin dead elves and wear their skin as armour? Or would it be expected to find other forms of protection that doesn't involve skinning people instead?

Also I'd like to see dragons get upset when they see people wearing dragonskin armour. I want them to react like a human would if they saw you wearing humanskin armour, and for the game to raise the question of ethics of wearing a sapient creature's skin as armour (who truly is the monster, the bigass creature who breathes fire or the guy wearing the skin of people?)

I say include dragons, even make them look like the archetype dragon but drop the whole lizard thing. Not everything that has scales is reptillian, and dragons are clearly portrayed as warm-blooded these days. I say make them their own class (as in biology class like mammals and reptiles) that is perhaps defined as innately magical (with wyverns perhaps portrayed as apes are to humans perhaps, and other monstrously magical races being grouped in with them like how cats, dogs and humans are all grouped together as mammals). This would make more sense to me and divorces them from being big lizards. If they really want to make them different looking, they could give them manes! Not a mane like a lion but more like a horse's mane perhaps?

If that was the case, we should also have males running around in chainmal speedos. Wait..why chainmail? It would chaif. Let's just enchant a silk thong or a big codepiece. Hm..come to think of it, if magical protective any-shape fields like that exist, why even bother with heavy swords? Let's have an enchanted ring that projects a magical sword-shaped field with steel durabiltiy and sharpness.. Wait, I got a better idea. If rings can be enchanted...if any obejct can be enchanted..why not simply enchant the body..or a tatoo? Let's have a mass of naked people running around in invisible armor fighting with invisible weapons. Very cheap on the art department to boot. Becase MAGIC is the solution to all problems. I was going to post the exact same thing. If a chainmail bikini protects the same as a full suit why would anyone wear the latter, everyone would run around in chainmail bikinis and speedos! Your mighty warrior will stride into battle wearing nothing but a thong, his balls swaying free in the wind as nature intended! As Minsc would say, thongs for everyone!

Trashman, I gotta say you have the patience of a saint to still be posting without killing anyone. I would have gone on a killing spree by now or at least put my head through a wall! :D

In regards to the posts stating that you wouldn't wear plate while adventuring, the spanish conquisitors, historical real life adventurers, wore plate while exploring south america. Plate was not that heavy also, there was a reason it became the de facto best choice of armour wanted by everyone.

What characters I hope they don't use for inspiration? Gosh, where to begin? I'm like a candy in a kid's store, wait have I got that wrong? No matter, here's my list of characters that I despise, not for being unlikeable characters (since that would imply they were good characters) but simply being bad in some form or another (opinion of course, but mine is always right obviously): Morrigan (DAO) Qara (NWN2) Zaeed (ME2) Morinth (ME2) Miranda (ME2) Duncan (DAO guy, the one who recruits you into the wardens) Jack (ME2) Kratos (God of War) Bishop (NWN2) That guardsman who lets you walk off with the bloody amulet after the emperor dies (TES 4: Oblivion) Thrall (Warcraft 3) Aerie (BG2) These are characters that I feel for one reason or another are badly designed, one-dimensional, cliched, forced upon you or are obviously the creators pet mary-sue, and didn't compensate for this flaw with being an enjoyable character to have around.

I hope there are no cutscenes. One of the arguments in favor of voice and why having a silent protagonist feels weird is because such cutscenes are geared up for voice, seeing someone talking but hearing no sound makes it feel like something is missing. Since PE is not going to be voiced beyond what the old IE games were (catch phrases in combat and the occasional line perhaps, though I have no problems with it just being the battle catch phrases), which I think is a good thing (voice costs so much and causes so much to be lost in favor of it that I don't consider it worth it), and so dialogue boxes would be the better way to go (not to mention that zooming in to show faces would be awkward since the game is isometric with 2D backdrops).

How to ensure good writing in PE? Get a court order banning Bioware from coming within 50 miles of PE! Ba-dum tish! Sorry, it must be that time of the month for me.

You could ride horses and even carts in TES 2 Daggerfall actually, and Oblivion was just return to that feature.

Funnily enough, I only now think of what the names would be in finnish. (Won't be a translated version and I wouldn't play one if there was) Ranger = Metsänvartija = literally forest guardian, or forest keeper In RPG's it'd probably be Metsästäjä = hunter, or Metsämies = Forest-man or forest dweller And about Tolkien, silly or not but that's how it goes and what we're stuck with. D&D is a pretty direct rip-off, with elves and orcs and hobbits (ehh.. make that halflings or kenders because of copyright). Ranger was just given bow and 2 weapon fighting because ranger is just like fighter, only worse, doesn't really give much incentive to play one. 2-weapon fighting was a stupid thing to give them to begin with, but I guess that was because the mental image of a ranger with shield is just wrong. But yeah, hope it's a hunter in polish version so everybody's happy. (btw, is the word really hunter in polish as well? google says so. They gave rangers two weapon fighting because of the popularity of Drzz't. The class started off as based on Aragorn but has drifted so far from it and become more based on that accursed dark elf as they tried to find a proper niche for the class. The name really depends on whst exactly the class gets really. If they plan on making all rangers have pets and survival skills then ranger suits or maybe nomad. If they plan on the class being defined as a long range attacker that can be equally be built as an urbanite as a wilderness guy then something like archer might fit better.

So, you said that. A tiny part of game. Worth very little in development hours. And how much exactly does it add to gameplay?Many that played BG2 will firstly remember their romances, then other companions, and only then general plot - baalspawn, etc. Majority, i dare to say. If it works so good - why not to consider spending a little more effort this way? Twice or trice more text than in BGs(1,2,TOB) would be absolutely great and enough. Why do most people remember the romanceables over other charavters? Because they had more INTERACTION! It is because the other characters were neglected in developing their interacterability with the main character in favor of titillating the player instead. If the other relationships had been developed as much as the romances then you would have their characters remembered as much. In fact: Sarevok! He was not romanceable yet he was the most memorable character in ToB because he was more interactive and fleshed out! And the lack of interactivity with Imoen, your sister, was criminal! I made the same mistake you did, thinking that the romances added immersion because the other characters lacked interaction. And romance actually detracts from interaction, since in order to interact woth them you need to bone them, which prevents interaction with others and requires those who don't want to romance to have to shove their **** in someone just to get some conversation. I say sort out all the other possible interactions first them stuff a romance in at the end if there's time and it fits with the character's personality (last bit is vital, no personality breaks just to make them boneable).

It can be immersion breaking if the other way around: the bodies never disappearing. Having tons of bodies just lying everywhere can look...bad....

Well, here's my brain-fart on the matter: A mage should be able to melee and use melee weapons, hell there were spells in D&D and Baldur's Gate that required meleeing anyway, might as well give the mage a chance to actually use those swords. A lot of people here seem to fear the idea that the mage will somehow usurp the fighter if they gain melee skills, and this points us towards the source of the problem but is not, itself, the problem. The real problem was that weapon and armour choice was the only thing that fighters really had over others, 2nd ed D&D gave them nothing much else apart from weapon specialisations, and so they were pretty boring to play, just launch them in and leave them to it. Many other games since then (and even before), have given fighters more and more powers, and PE itself plans on giving them soul-powers along with everyone else. In that case, I would question the need to limit weapon choice at all: what defines the class is the powers you get and how they help you achieve your role. To be blunt, weapon restriction is, in my humble opinion, a pathetic, lazy and arbitrary attempt at class definition that isn't needed if the classes are done right. As to the mage's effectiveness in melee, and whether it should cost the mage magery capabilities to offset it, I believe the mage would be effective in different ways and should not lose mage capability for having melee capability, on the contrary since a mage fights using spells I can see it opening up new avenues for spell casting attacks while showing just how different they are in melee from fighters: while a fighter uses fighty-skills to fight a mage would cast spells for different effects, eg the mage rooting foes for the fighter to smash. Mages being relegated to artillery was yet again a result of lazy design.

... Out of a cannon... into the sun? o_O? That should be a Ranger soul-bility! "Shoot Self: Assume the form of an extremely potent magical arrow, firing yourself from your own bow (which is anchored in mid-air by soul-power, obviously, u_u)" Well played sir, well played! Damn, now I want that ability! http://www.obsidianorderofeternity.net/ site is here and the Heraldry guy LordCrash (LC) can be found on the Torment Kickstarter page everyday (although no-one can be found on the order website just posted lol) Excellent thank you, better had sort out my account if I can then.

You know, if they did include a pacifist run in the game, I'd like it to often have bad consequences as a result. You knocked out the gang trying to mug that man instead of killing them? Well, when they wake up (assuming they didn't just wake up and start fighting you while you were still there, as would occasionally happen in real life), they are going to want to restore their reputation and reinstill the fear people had for them by going on a murder spree, bashing into poor people's homes, raiding the place and raping the women. Well done hero. You knocked out the mercenaries that were sent in to kill all those poor farmers? Well, that's not going to stop them from taking another job like that again later, they are mercs. You can't be there protecting people all the time, and just knocking out the bad guys isn't going to solve the problem permanently.