Luckmann

I hate kung-fu monks. Why can't we get a Templar Pugilist or something, instead?

I voted yes on both, but honestly, I'd prefer just something Paladin-like. Like the Knights I've suggested, as the main fighting class(es). And bloody hell, yes, we need bards.

it goes hand in hand with the whole perceived sexism thing... it's pretty barf inducing to be honest. Video games are notorious for this in recent years (*obligatory BioWare reference!*). My biggest fear is that in Obsidian's writers' minds these things might be synonymous with the concept of "mature themes". Which is always most likely either a grimdark setting or a bunch of Evil People Who Fight for Good (or vice versa). As much as I hate the whole "mature themes" schtick meaning "sexual progressiveness" or make-believe-fantasy-atheism (for the love of rage, they're there, we can see them, they talk to us, we heal people for crying out loud!) some other horse**** like that... I don't see how that relates to Grimdark. I do love myself some Grimdark.

...I think this is the 6th variation of this thread. Possibly 7th.

And you can't capitalize or punctuate properly.

Where's the option of "Some system that has never been tried before (I won't explain)"? Because I'm tired of these threads and I'm tired of repeating myself. And why the hell is Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2 lumped together? Why is Baldur's Gate 2 separated but not Icewind Dale/2 and Planescape: Torment? If anything, Planescape: Torment was the only one that diverted slightly from the others. Have you actually played any of these games? ....and did you just lump Arx Fatalis together with Ultima Underworld? Christ.

Of course it's racist. It's races. It's practically the definition of racist. Christ, would it have been somehow less racist if whites were the one with the reduced intelligence? If anything, that would have made it so much worse. It is people like you that are ruining everything they touch.

"Issue of objectification". Lost me there.

NPC Character? Non-Player Character Character? Oh, also, complete control, thanks. At worst, I could accept having minor restrictions, such as an Aerie-like character simply being unable to put points in an Intimidate-like skill, or an Edwin-like character simply being unable to multiclass into physical classes. But as a general rule, the more control, the better.

I wouldn't mind dragons, if they actually flew. http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/09/11/counter-monkey-circle-strafe/

That was actually the desired intent. To make it clear how many people prefer to have cooldowns in the game above any other mechanic. Then you shouldn't change the premise of the poll in your post. This. Out of all the currently active polls, this one is probably the most useless. And when it comes to polls, most of them are.

To be fair, Japanese companies are still making Wizardry games (for consoles). Wizardry Bōkyaku no Isan was put out in 2010 for the DS; Wizardry: Labyrinth of Lost Souls released to Japan and NA via PSN in 2009. Still doesn't translate to this non-Wizardry like game being appealing to Asian countries (but maybe room to wonder if there's still a market for a new Wizardry game - totally different issue!) It's a bit unfair to say "Japanese companies are still making Wizardry games". Those games, albeit with the title on the box, has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what we associate with the Wizardry series.

This poll is bad and you should feel bad. First the question is simple. Do you want cooldowns for using spells/abilities in Project Eternity. Fine. Alright. Yes. Then you change it and say, in the post, that one should vote No if you prefer this or that. It's simplistic and useless, and on top of it, it is already covered better by other polls or threads, with plenty of discussion. I want cooldowns. But I also want everything else. I've made this clear time and time again.

As much as I hate the whole "Larger than the entire world" crap, I must say that that was one of the most memorable fights in the BG "Trilogy" for me. I once played a completely broken Elven Archer, dishing out (at least according to the stat sheet) over 10 attacks per round (even though it's supposed to be limited at 10, so I don't know). No-one reached me. As much as I hated the way BG2 just threw so many enormously powerful opponents at you, and showered you with levelups and arbitrarily made some opponents ridiculously deadly for no real reason (like soldiers randomly kitted out in what should be enormously powerful gear, or beasts that just plain shouldn't have certain abilities), by the end of the series - even if I thought that Throne of Bhaal should've been it's own standalone game with it's own epic - I felt that I had somehow earned the right to curbstomp that army, even if they did come equipped with, again, absurdly powerful gear that should've been exceedingly rare. The battle with Amelyssan was a complete meh-fest, though.

Well first, about that quip on the Soul-Eater mechanic in MotB; Great idea, terrible implementation. That really could've used some more polish, because - especially since it affected alignment in a relatively nonsensical manner - it was very easy to get into the situation where it just wasn't feasible to play with it at all, and you could die during a transition, because you didn't have anyone to eat anymore. It was likewise just as easy to completely ignore, once you had gotten your Hunger (or whatever it was called) down to zero. That said, back to topic. No, I do not think that Soul should be an inherent statpoint or mechanic. But it depends heavily upon how souls are supposed to work. It's incredibly hard to say yet, but I can imagine that if souls were deeply tied to your race (which could make complete sense; "Godlikes" could have strong souls, elves or dwarves or dragonborn have old or ancient ones, while the lesser races like orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc, could have fractured souls. Humans, as per regular fantasy tropes, could have "young" souls. And so on. So it really, really depends on how they want to twist the story. That being said, my immediate knee-jerk reaction is to not want it as a mechanic, since I just feel that it should, or seem to, have so much to do with the whole overreaching storyline, setting and lore. If it is a game mechanic, I would prefer it if it either was entirely tied to race, or picked as a completely separate aspect on character creation; not something that increases (or decreases) arbitrarily as we play the game.

There's actually been larger (scientific-ish) surveys to determine the gaming trends and what is popular in Europe, Asia and America. Now, they might be a bit old by now (it's been years since I actually read about the study), but they matched up pretty well with the preconceptions. Europeans preferred complicated or "deep" games such as RPGs and RTS', Asians liked JRPGs and anything grindesque where "effort" was a measurement of success, while Americans were all about the FOOOTBAAAAWWWWWL; sports games and FPS'. Despite some European countries apparent love for localizations (Poland, Germany, etc), most gamers doesn't appear to want them (for a long variety of understandable reasons). Localizations is a good way to ensure long-term interest in the game, getting those extra sales to mom and pops, or the younglings. But it's a terrible way to drum up support from the gaming scene. Anyone with a strong interest in this genre, grognards and neckbeards united, already know English. Kickstarter was, out of necessity if nothing else, always aimed at the hardcore groups or pre-existing supporters, with a deep or abiding interest in whatever project is up for funding. Localization is, like, the complete opposite of that.

The problem is that every time you actually do that, people just sorta glance right past the post and continue arguing about "I don't like X".

The real disadvantages if casting is done on mana or on cooldown and all spells are available at all the time is that the spell list has to be small, otherwise the game won't be balanced. Unless you combine it with a psuedo-Vancian approach of preparing a limited load-out.

I don't mind at all. I love having minor unique snowflake stuff; after all, companions often have it, so why not I? Just no throwing-galaxies-as-shuriken stuff.

Where's the option of "None"?

Thanks for the link. Clearly they would need to be made useful in combat for mounts to have value, but the fact that mounted knights were the dominant military arm in Europe during the medieval era speaks for their importance. Yes. In an RTS.

The nature of message boards is that topics are cyclical. If there is no interest in discussing this topic anymore, this thread will fall away quickly. If there is interest, it won't. No big deal either way. In the meantime, if it bugs you to see it brought up again, you're welcome to ignore it. The problem with that is that while people have an interest in the topic, they get tired of constantly repeating themselves and essentially 're-educate' the participants, bringing the debate up from the asinine sea of blah it usually starts with. Stupidity and opinionation shouldn't win by walkover or sheer attrition.

Well to be fair, though, it was a curse. The dark skin of the drow wasn't evolution.

Such... potential. *cries*

I don't only speaking for this thread . I opened 1 or 2 threads and I don't like the reactions. People not liking you or people not liking your ideas, doesn't constitute trolling. Even if I were as insulting as I'd prefer to be, me being mean towards you and ridiculing asinine ideas isn't trolling.