anubite

Respecs can cheapen the decisions you make in-game. We shouldn't expect new players to make perfect characters on their first play through of the game. But at the same time, a game shouldn't play itself. Where is the challenge if you can redo all the choices you've made at the tip of your hat? Respeccing once per character at some extreme cost, seems... like an acceptable compromise, but I don't think it's a feature we need. I know people who have only played 'new' RPGs might be accustomed to respeccing, but we're deliberately not catering to that group of people, I thought?

I think the main difference between KOTOR2 and DA2, while both being 'let's make a game in under a year and reap massive profits on the name of franchise alone', is that Obsidian is competent has workers who like making fun games and that BioWare is full of people who don't want to play a fun game (like Hepler) or don't know how to make one.

I could write a novel about what was wrong with DA2, but the comparison between DA2 and KOTOR2 is actually a fascinating one. Both were developed in 11 months and both were disasters, but for completely different reasons. KOTOR2 is actually a good game, it just didn't work on release. DA2 worked on release, but its sales dropped off rapidly with word of mouth and stores were singing at EA for delivering an item to their shelves they couldn't even get rid of. The critical breakdown of the game has been done by a few people, though they've all been apologists to Bioware. No one has torn into it enough to my liking. 1. The characters are trash. Absolute trash. Their motivations aren't consistent or developed significantly. Anders, Avelline and Isabella are perplexingly flat and bizarre at the same time. I really have no idea what they were thinking when they made that emo-elf companion. A good example of this is Merril's story. She wants to be accepted by her clan but does things they can never accept, hoping they'll like her for doing them. She stick around with you because, you know, she can. And then you have the option to brutally murder her entire clan if you say something arbitrarily different. And she's fine with that. Hardly says a word over it. 2. The themes and core stories are not integrated well (one core theme is family, but your whole family is dead by act 3 and it doesn't seem to matter). The core plot doesn't really make sense (from a political view - why house dangerous armed refugees in your capital?). Aspects of the story, like raising money to go on an expedition, were done better in BioWare's older titles (like ****ing BG2). The time skips are horribly jarring. Kirkwall, the city, is not developed at all. "It was built by slaves." And that's all you get the entire game. 3. Asset recycling. You literally go to the same beach/cave/house 3-7 times for completely different tasks in different spatial locations in different time periods. 4. Combat is wave-based, attrition-based. On the hardest difficulty, you win by walking backwards and chipping away at that guy's 100000000000 life (to kill the dragon boss on the highest difficulty literally takes well over half an hour of doing this). The combat is mystifying, without a sense of impact, because your characters act with the finesse of an anime superhero, flinging their staves around like light sabers. 5. Itemization is awful (you cannot allocate attributes for your characters how you want, because gear requires a dictated amount of primary stat to wield). Character building in awful (you basically have three means to develop your characters for combat, none of which are particuarly interesting or exciting). 6. Choices have no impact (you fight the same bosses, encounter the same conflict resolutions no matter what you say or do). Choices from DA1 were integrated poorly. BioWare retconned every again too, even if you kill certain characters in DA1, you'll be seeing them again in DA2. 7. Exploration is non-existent. It's not fun. This is a result of 3. 8. Immersion-breaking stupidity (you're a mage in a city where being a mage is a quality fit for imprisonment) everywhere. The writing is completely inconsistent, confusing, or just bad.

I think most of us have had our fair-share of WoW-inspired, insipidly-shallow skill trees. If there's going to be a skill tree in this game, I want each class to have at least 100 talents to put one point in. Path of Exile's kind of spoiled me (http://www.pathofexi...ive-skill-tree/) but not really - I'm not saying PE should be as ridiculously big as that, but I'm tired of the WOW-style "oh there's 7 to 15 passives to pick from!" - it's too narrow, there's not enough character building with a set-up like that. Especially when a majority of such nodes are worthless or don't impact your character enough. Feats are probably more suited for this kind of game, but I really love the keystone idea PoE is developing, where you can significantly alter your character's performance by choosing a passive ability which makes some aspect of play difficult/tough, while making another aspect very powerful. Like, a keystone for PE blood-thirsty-rogue might be, "You cannot be healed by restorative spells. Your critical strikes leech 30% of their damage as life." Basically, a Feat with polarizing downside and upside.

The developers won't waste their time trying to condense all the features this game will have into 8 to 12 button inputs on a controller. You shouldn't expect them to either. If you're a "grown up" then you can learn to configure a program that will set up a controller for you. Though, have fun trying to play a tactical game with one of those things.

It's fun when you're abusing a game. That's called mastering it. When a game devolves into scumming, or something, then there's something un-fun deeply rooted in the game that needs to be eradicated.

I'd just want them to be rare as hen's teeth; and prized when aquired ~and saved for last resort. I did like the toxin mechanic for potions in the original Witcher. Well dang, if we keep following suggestions like this, the game might as well just be a medieval Europe sim. My impression was that most people signed up to get a game experience like the IE series. Neither magic nor potions were that rare in the IE games; just expensive, as should be. The economics can take care of the scarcity. We signed up knowing full well we wouldn't get an IE clone. Because they're opting not to even use the IE engine - when they easily could. So it goes without saying, why not change something? BG2 was not perfect and potions was just one aspect that could have used some tweaking.

BG can give up to 20-30 possible responses for you to make, a couple of times during the game's life. I think Torment gave at least half as many options at once. Timed reponses are not conducive to that. So, no thanks. Let's bring back complexity to dialogue choices. None of this "top, middle, bottom" choices shoved down our throats by BW.

Making potions plentiful would be fine actually, provided the ptions never provide direct healing benefits. Potions that increase chance to block/evade are more tactical than life restoration potions, because you need to use them proactively to increase your life.

It depends upon the art style really. If there are portions of a map that can be extracted (ie trees, grass, other kind of basic textures), players could construct their own custom maps using a program like photoshop, then create a pathing file somehow.

I do agree generally, however, having small stat requirements for gear is not a detriment to customization -- and I think it forces some deeper character building. What's if there's some amazing magic-oriented staff in the game (maybe it's even available early and can be upgraded like the multi-headed mace)? But it's rather heavy and bulky and requires a minimum strength of 9 - if you know this weapon exists ahead of time or discover it early enough, you could find a way to fit 9 strength into your mage character to wield it, instead of trying to min/max your way to success by stacking as much int/con/wisdom as possible. I think stat requirements then, are a good way to restrict gear. Perhaps not all gear, of course.

Nice details Luridis. That all makes sense and your analysis sounds reasonable. So while it's likely we'll be able to mod many aspects of the game, it's completely dependant upon how many resources Obsidian spends developing the necessary aspects of code to let us do so. Naturally, they aren't going to let us recompile their game from source.

There is a nexus and they implied they will support modding in any way they can; they're going to try and make it as mod-friendly as possible. This doesn't actually mean modding is going to be easy or even possible. We'll have to wait and see. So long as you can compile and get a script to run using the Unity engine inside the game, you can mod the game. It would be nice if we got more direct "mod support" such as a window to select the "mod" that you're running (similar to FO/TES), but I suspect the way modding will work for this game will be less direct. It'll probably be more like modding for BG (which is far less user-friendly).

I've not played Darklands, I suppose I'll have to after this thread. More hardcore than anything? Forgive me for never having heard of it. That said, I have played many other games that were not Darklands. They also had regenerating health. And they sucked. Please admit that this system is at least similar to something like Mass Effect's health+shield system, where you have a rapidly recharging shield that is a buffer for your health, that can only be recovered with medical supplies. Because that's what it is. If what makes this endurance system different is its ratio to health and its regeneration speed, then that's all what makes it different - unless there are more systems at play here than what they are telling us. How will injuries effect our ability to fight? How will health be recovered exactly? How much endurance should we expect to see, over life? Will we be able to increase only endurance? Or maximum life as well?

Removing XP does not constrain player choice. If you want to kill all the guards, just to be safe, then go right ahead. I'm sure many players will do this anyway, even if they don't get XP from this. Enemies DO drop their items upon death - or at least, they should sometimes. That's more than a sufficient reward to promote mass murder. The point is, I should not be encouraged to kill people in order to level up.

It just looks complex. It's really not. And I acknowledge cRPGs != aRPGs, but what's been missing from the following RPGs - DA:O, DA2, DA:A, ME1-3, Gothic 4, KoA: Reckoning, Witcher 2, Skyrim - Namely, any recent single player RPG - - is the depth of character building. Every RPG these days has emulated World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft, even in its hybrid classes, has very narrow, well-defined class roles. You cannot stray too far from these predetermined character builds or you will be performing so sub-optimally, that the game will not be fun, or at least, nobody will let you have fun. Path of Exile is an extreme example of breaking this trend, because it offers you 1000+ passives to pick from, or at least, you can create one of any thousand of skill combinations to define the character you make how you want. Said character is probably viable in its own unique way. That's what I want. Of course, I don't want it so that any haphazard skill choice renders a good character, but I want the freedom to pick what stats I want, what equipment I want, and I want to have the choice to make and build and play my character as I see fit. I don't want to be shoe-horned into your class definition. I want to operate inside a class definition, but I don't want to be narrow defined in a role. If I make a priest character, I should be able to make the priest into a melee fighter who can hold his own in melee combat, while still providing some kind of support role, either through heals or buffs. If I make a paladin character, they should be able to use a bow at least to some extent. I should be able to hybridize a character -- call this multiclassing if you want to -- but I shouldn't be laughed at for having an 18 intelligence warrior character. There should be items, skills, passives and mechanics in the game that allow a high-intelligence warrior to do something special - like constantly make critical strikes, or be good at dealing with mage-related enemies. I want Obsidian to make it such that many things in the game scale. I don't think it's fun to build a character, say a fighter, and always spend my attribute points in STR and CON because that's the only thing that works. I should be able to substitute my STR for INT and still perform some kind of a fighter role, while also being different. Perhaps I can't articulate this too well without being overly specific, but in Path of Exile, you can start as a base Marauder class, have high life points, then specialize in magic, even though Marauders don't have many good opportunities to improve their spell damage - they can still improve their fire damage, and they're in a relatively good spot to get a second totem, meaning, a Marauder player can become a typical two-handed brute, or they can become some kind of a fire-Shaman character. Both builds are viable in their own way and you can't say either build is "wrong". I want similar flexibility in PE. If I make a fighter, why shouldn't I be able to invest in magic? I understand if certain spells are not accessible because I did not start as a mage, but why can't I enhance my melee attacks with magic? Or utilize certain magical artifacts better? If PE is going to be primarily a skill-based system, why shouldn't I be able to blur the lines between classes? We have enough games that firmly lock you into a narrow class identity. I'm sick of those games and I don't think they have as nearly as much longevity. Consider this: People still play Diablo 2 and Titan Quest. This game is not them, but I think it aims to be very replayable. We should endeavor to make the combat and character building systems as complex and as deep as possible, to facilitate as many play through as possible. Because cRPGs are about exploration; exploring the choices you "could have" made requires a new playthrough. ARPGs are very, very replayable.

Good alignments (usually) make sacrificial and usually "just" choices. Neutral alignments (usually) make balanced or self-centered choices. Neutral alignments are either about the natural order of the universe being preserved (and not a mere human's) or about preserving one's own life and nothing more (like an animal would do). Evil alignments (usually) make greedy, psychopathic and/or "emotional" choices. They're about seizing power, controlling others, protecting the self above all else. They are uncompromising. Writing a good alignment is comparatively easy. There are lots of nuances for good characters (you can have good intentions but create bad results for others) that create interesting situations and moral choices. Writing a neutral alignment is a little tricky, but if you can write "good characters with good intentions" you can probably write selfish characters with self-centered intentions fairly well. You can also probably understand the view point of a druid or an animal and take those approaches into account, allowing that yes - it is sensible to say that not all people should have a good alignment. Neutral alignments are probably more common in real life. People will make moral choices that preserve themselves and not others, but that is not inherently wrong. Writing an evil alignnment is difficult because many people are evil for reasons that don't make sense (they're insane). I think roleplaying an insane character isn't that interesting, at least in a cRPG. Maybe it can be done in a real life setting, but even then... if you're insane, that's it. Hardly any depth there. You do things because you do, not for any reason that can be contradicted or compared against. The only other way to write an evil character is to give them a vengeance story, or to allow the player the ability to utilize some great power, that comes at a great moral cost. Weaving such choices into a story is very hard. Fallout 3 did the whole evil alignment terribly, partially because you can donate all your money to the local beggar then kill him, getting your money back and having close to max positive karma and partially because you were blowing up towns just because some guy asked you to earlier that morning; there wasn't any deeper motive. Nor was there any deep result - it's not like by blowing up a town, you betrayed someone you knew very well. Evil choices should be about making your character stronger or richer. You can give the man his wallet back or you can just keep it. In a karmic system, this would allow characters to balance good/evil choices and come out neutral - but since this game will follow a faction-related system, I suspect being evil will just mean you get on the good side of cults, corrupt politicians, and thieves. Allying with these people should allow you to rise in power, giving you the option to subvert people, to change the world in a way you'd like to.

What makes you think we can't be good or evil? Look at NV - there's no morality system in that, yet you can definitvely consider your character good or evil by who they help and what they do. Most cRPG games do the whole "play as an evil guy" thing better than most recent RPGs of recent day, but I would like to see "being evil" given a reasonable context and motive. Most RPGs reduce you to a mustache twirler.

No, it should be the only source. Otherwise, we encourage pointless slaughter. VTMB did this right. You got a decent amount of XP per quest and by no other means could you acquire XP. This meant, doing a quest quickly and efficiently was rewarded most. Sometimes missions rewarded you for not killing anybody, meaning, there was even an incentive not to kill anyone and to take the mission very slowly and carefully. Excellent game design - it means you can approach a problem from many angles and have fun your own way, being rewarded as a result. By tying XP rewards to quests, it also means we won't get any "Slay 11 rats" quests - because that would be antithetical to such design.

If a player wishes to do something, we shouldn't question their motives. All of the really good RPGs I know of, let you kill anybody in the game. Sure, it could completely break or ruin your game, but that's what saves are for. If you're going to kill an NPC, you should know what consequences that might bring. Skyrim is only one recent example of many, where "essential NPC" systems fail, ruining immersion and taking all of the fun out of the game. Morrowind didn't have such a system, and that game is beautiful to behold. It plays fine and is intuitive. I'll never understand why Skyrim and Oblivion had to have such a mechanic.

This isn't exactly true. There are poisons that can kill you extremely, extremely quickly, even when ingested into the stomach. Water is also very quickly absorbed into the bloodstream. Metabolism doesn't have to come into play for some substances. Besides, this is magic usually, what we're talking about here. I would scarcely expect it to follow the normal rules of conventional medicine and pharmacy. There could be herbs which are "absorbed into the soul" or however you want to explain it, and that such things rapidly effect one's body. I'd argue potions suck from a medical perspective because everything in the world is poisonous in the right concentration, even water. Potions should be no different, heck, they should be extremely toxic given their effects on the body. I would expect them to kill you if you took to many in a single period of time (a day, a week, a month).

Action is faster than reaction. Even if the energy required to move both the sword and the shield are the same, and the shield only has to move in a marginal direction compared to the swing of the sword, it takes far more combat training to properly shield yourself from the blow. You need a proper stance, a strong reaction speed, good training, and the strength to weather the blow. Blocking or deflecting a weapon is magnitudes more difficult than you might think. Try to block or deflect a punch, and you'll see what I mean. Granted, punches move faster than swords, but it's still difficult. Exhausting. And if the person's using a knife? Forget trying to block that. You'll probably be skewered. It's just too fast.

Dishonored's books were decent, small excerpts - but you're right. They don't serve any purpose considering I want to play a video game, not sit around and read a novel. It's fine to have long dialogue, since I'm responding to it - but a book just sits there. It's not interactive. It was a waste of somebody's time. Especially when Dishonored's main story was lamer than even some of the lamest saturday morning cartoons. What wasted potential. Bethesda hasn't written a new book since Morrowind - you can find nearly every book in Oblivion/Skyrim in there. Yet, Morrowind ended up being larger in scope and size than either... Romance can be something people mod into the game, and I'm not against being able to flirt or fling, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about "romance" which is a term which goes way back and has certain connotations, like requited love, a dating ritual, marriage, and everything else. Such connotations may be absolutely inappropriate for the characters and themes already established. It's why most recent BioWare games are ridiculous, the hypersexuality contrasts with everything else they're trying so hard to legitify. "So wait, we're in this cool sci-fi world, and there's a blue alien? And she wants to bang me? What? Does she have a vagina? Can she even feel love? How does that even work?" How anyone can praise the series for its setting is beyond me. I couldn't write trashier scifi if I tried.

Considering the time in which it was written and how it only screws up when tons of stuff gets crammed into doors, I think it does pretty well, at least compared to games like Starcraft. AMD's "top of the line" processors tend to be 6 cores or more cores stuck together. Sure, they get the job done if you're just surfing the net or playing an ancient game, but they're not exactly as well-suited for playing most newer games. I imagine the only reason they're even able to compete with Intel right now is because people probably jump to the conclusion that more cores = better. Which is usually the inverse.

High, out-of-combat, global, trivial, at-level-one regeneration is the antithesis to strategic gameplay. Unback the game in a second if that's where they're headed. I'm not even joking, that kind of thing is Dragon Age 2, Call of Duty tier game-design. It works, sure, in the same way Skyrim "works". And if all RPGs are going to "work" like Skyrim then I'm done with video games. I'm not a casual and the older games I enjoy do not have that nonsense.