Sabotin

As far as I remember you could rest anywhere except select areas? Anyway I'm sure there'll be something that can address such a preference. IE games had pretty straightforward consoles for example.

While having a single stat for damage does sound very strange and concerning, we still have no idea how base stats work. We don't know whether base stats have the same effect for every class even, or whether the bonuses are multipliers or additions or some arcane integral function or just requirements...

My first thoughts when reading this went to the keep in NWN2, it seems this will be an expanded version of that? I really like the sound of that prison thing, I think there are some nice opportunities for morally ambiguous decisions there. Also you've just raised the bar a bit, I'm glad to see you'll try do something extra with it, not just phoning it in. I look forward to the resident funny/liar companion one-upping me with tales of his own adventures . I see there's also some concern about the fortress interrupting the flow of the game. I'm suspecting that it will work like in NwN2, where stuff happened as you entered the inner doors? While being maybe a bit too mechanical I think it's still better than having messengers interrupt your adventures and require an urgent return. Besides, if you're fast traveling for 3 days back to the keep it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that people that need you would know you're coming back on this and this date, either via magic or just messenger birds. Secondly I think it would be a good idea to have the stronghold be opt-in. Have a chamberlain with an average/default stronghold progression set, so that it works on its own. Instead of giving the player money, the taxes would go towards upgrades etc., so the player wouldn't be shortened of any important stuff. When acquiring the place the player could decide if he wants to bother with it. Or you could even have options to jump in or out of the auto-management. Btw, I think prestige could be interpreted as standard of living or something. If I remember right, taxes were usually based on how much you make/own, so if it's more it would be logical that you get more taxes from it.

I think that mostly modal abilities are the way to go for warriors. Meaning various combat techniques and stances that have definite advantages and disadvantages. For active abilities I'd have the same treatment, static advantages and disadvantages. That way you have a reason not to use them all the time, while still giving the player something to do. Of course it also depends on the design of abilities. I'd really love to see lots of different combat animations rather than "warrior magic". There was this mod for NWN1 that added a couple of combat styles - just visual, but I think it added a lot to the appearance of melee combat.

I'd like to see this only if there is some time investment to make the treasures have unique appearances, descriptions, displays, etc. The "trash items" in DA2 were a terrible disappointment to me.

The number can be part of it also .

How about artwork bulleting instead of those numbers/dashes/semicolons/etc.? I'm not bothered at all by the current appearance, but it seems like a neat thing.

Is that screenshot how the player actually goes through the conversation or is that what the player sees when he scrolls up the dialogue? In the IE Games that dialogue would be shown one line at a time with the continue button to go to the next one, before getting to the question/replies part. If you scrolled the chat up however it would show like that. Here's an example form IWD: 1:- Getting through the dialogue 2:- What you see when you scroll up and back down. I'm just assuming that it will work the same way and that's why you have the name of the person talking written for each line? I like the art: I think the textures give the window a less plain look. The color scheme doesn't require my eyes to shift into gear either. I would actually prefer a bulkier window like this, partly cause of nostalgia and party to give dialogue some weight, by keeping it in the center and exposed. Another question popped into my head though. That portrait is of the party member that is talking or of the person you are talking to? I guess it's the former, but do you plan on giving important NPCs some portraits also, like in ToB?

Honestly, I think full immunities should be part of the game where it makes sense. They should however not be something sweeping like "immune to non-magic" or randomly put there (thug type 1 immune to cold, thug type 2 immune to fire, ...) My reasoning is that with just resistances you can more easily have a one-approach-fits-all situation where specialized party members can have enough punch to ignore resistances, thereby making them pointless. And that I have preconceptions (common/fantasy sense?) in place, like "fire elementals are immune to fire" etc... Sort of unrelated: I'd like to see some encounters that have a narrower field of possibilities to overcome, but that the player has the option to plan ahead. Ok this sounded weird. I'd like some encounter that you have to be pretty specific about your strategies, but that the game provides you with some knowledge and hints, so that you prepare somewhat. So that the encounter is similarly difficult on further playthroughs and doesn't hinge on the player being unprepared.

I'm guessing it's more of a question of how far a class is implemented than an artificial cap. I'd also say it depends on where it is relative to the game. If I reach max level at 2/3 or so then it's an issue. If I just barely reach max level at the very end or not at all then I don't see any reasons for developing further than needed.

I find such items very interesting, but it's often difficult to justify their existence. If they don't do much they're unneeded. If the bonuses are substantial these items wreak havoc on the difficulty curve, with certain fights being impossible without a certain setup or, if they're not set up that way, a cakewalk. Rather than a +- function I'd therefore rather see items that would change the game play in some way. Having positive and negative sides, but those being exclusively on the side of the player. Such items would probably still be exploitable in some way, but I think to a lesser extent than stacking items until you achieve godhood in a single specialization. And would perhaps feel more fulfilling for the player when figuring out what synergizes well.

I would prefer some subtlety in this regard. I think role playing games could do more with lies for example. In the real world we have countless numbers of ways to (mis-)represent information, so much that we count on a certain measure of it and sometimes cannot even distinguish lies and truth. Too often the game version is so blatant that it only misses a mustache twirl and evil laugh to go with it. Even for more horrible things I would prefer subtlety. Being direct for shock value is good for underlining some point, but often people's reaction with something disagreeable is an outright rebuke. Even reading this thread you can see that different people have different preferences regarding this. While some might regard it as controversial, some are more comfortable discussing it. PE has an opportunity I think in the fact that it can use an abundance of text, swaying the player's mind in a certain direction, providing detail when deemed appropriate and withholding it where better left to the player's imagination. As for my personal preference, I would not like to see depraved acts in PE. A certain measure can liven the world, but I think that it at the same time distracts from more important parts of the story. Furthermore I think it would dull my senses to various other goings on, making them seem less important in comparison. Or on the other end of the scale it could make me feel accustomed to evil things and just ignore them entirely, at which point there'd be no more purpose to them. In both cases you end up with getting more and more ridiculously evil as you go along, trying to keep things relevant. Then you look back and notice you're a cartoon villain. Besides, when I think of medieval fantasy, there's dragons, wizards and paladins appearing in my mind much before sacking, rape and murder. And just a short quip on the options available to the player - in real life you can theoretically do anything, but you're not specifically presented with an option to do so.

Heh, actually the first thing that came to mind was that they got rid of that thing with wizards INT/clerics WIS/Sorcs CHA or that both melee and ranged weapons use STR for damage. The one problem I see for now is that they've thrown both mental and physical into one basket. I believe most of the stats can easily be explained away with fluff (higher "damage" might more muscles for fighters, more brainpower for mages etc...), but when you come to gish characters there's that disconnect. As previously stated, I just can't wrap my head around a wizard hitting with a sword or spell based on a single stat. Obviously we have nowhere near enough information to make an informed opinion, but I think it's still valid to voice concerns even at this stage.

I actually dread a potential series of events: -70k+ backers having their own interpretation of what PE should be like -backers not feeling the same as playing IE games when playing PE (cause they're like 15 years older) -backers feeling cheated, labeling PE as a nostalgia cashgrab -renewed disinterest in the genre and death -another option is that the game is buggy as hell, labeling the faults of everything else Obsidian made before as company incompetence and making the outside issues usually presented as reasons just excuses. - a third dread would be that it goes like with DA2: changes presented during development are improvements or at least rationalized, end result terrible/not what expected. I'll think of something more positive later, hehe

So there's nothing to worry about, right? They'll listen to the whining and bitching from a vocal minority about the removal of these features and put them back in!

I would like to see some unique items in shops, in fact I'd be disappointed if there weren't a few sprinkled across the world. For me, looking in various shops for interesting items is just as fun as exploring dungeons and opening chests for them. The difference is that when you see something very nice you'd want it gives a tangible short-term goal to go for. It may seem impossible to have enough money at first, but soon it becomes accessible if you're saving. It also does not matter if the item is superior in the long run, as long as it either superior at the moment, or has a specialized use throughout the game. When I buy something strong from the shop I'm not expecting it to be the last thing I buy, I'm expecting it to get me through some future encounters easier. One defining thing in a weapon's usefulness is not only what is is, but also when you get it. And I believe even though you usually can't plan ahead without meta-gaming, it should still remain the player's choice - pick up a stronger item now for most of your money, or hope for the best and save the money to buy something even better later. Or even without that, we have to remember that we have a party of 6(?) people, with each of them needing specific equipment, due to player choices. Playing BG2, if you had a paladin what would you put on it as the ultimate weapon? What if it was specialized in 1-handed? What if it wasn't a paladin? etc... With IWD2 I didn't really have a problem with unique things in shops. If something bothered me I'd say it was that there was a bunch of named weapons without description and some weapons seemed like they didn't belong to shops due to their more extensive back story. What kind of unique items I'd like to see in shops? Perhaps items that are unique in the game, but not the world. I mean there'll be like 50 epic artifacts just from the backers, I'm not sure it's a good idea to put even more. But some culturally different items, or rare finds... I'd guess merchants in areas with a large flow of people would like to buy stuff most people don't need cheap and sell it for a high price to those that have a use for them. Buying and selling items is also a cash sink in an of itself, as you don't buy/sell the stuff for the same price. The numbers just have to be adjusted so that you don't get super rich off of stuff you find and there actually have to be incentives to buy/sell stuff. You could even make it a bit dynamic with prices changing a bit with time and your "contributions" to the economy. Is there an appraise skill? Finally, I really think that (negative/normal state) as opposed to (normal/positive state) in the mechanics is a bad idea. I realize that it's just a difference in math and the results are the same, but psychologically I think most people would find the latter more favorable. Just looking at games over the last few years in general (even just life), the approach steadily moved from stick to carrot. PE is geared towards "older" generations that enjoyed IE games, but I'll go out on a limb and say that we've changed in these years, too. Nostalgia works much better from afar I think, and when it comes down to it we all have our own preferences, regardless of whether we remember a certain game as perfect.

Huh? Item durability? Seems simple, a point was made to make it look non-tedious, reminds me a bit of Arcanum... What's the point of it, though, I mean it's.. no... oh no no no, please don't... don't do it... NOOOOOoooo!!! Crafting I'll most likely ignore as in most games, it's not really my cup of tea. Unless it's the only way to get something I deem as invaluable or is very very simplified and not tedious at all. Not requiring dozens of trips to gather the materials would be a good start. I mean if I enter a forge I'd expect it to be stocked with everything needed even if I have to buy what I'm missing from the owner at a markup. I much prefer to hunt unique and hidden crafting components. One other thing that'd be nice, if it was avoided - having to have a character specialized in crafting at the expense of everything else. For example if you wanted to craft in NWN2 it was probably common practice to have a magic oriented companion learn all the crafting related feats and skills and have them sit in the camp forever. That way you didn't have to "waste" any combat effectiveness of your main party.

I think we've had plenty of purple in games, often associated with evil (thought it's green just as often). Pink not as much, but then again neither is any other neon-y color. In PE I think we'll see mostly earthen tones (someone mentioned that while discussing UI I think) with the more vivid colors used for magic or to point your eyes at something interesting on screen. I really like that idea with only kings wearing purple, it seems like a nice little detail.

You could equally argue that gray is just a varying degree of presence of light, not a mixture of black and white... I still stand by my opinion, although I see that I could have misinterpreted the original post. What I have read is that you wanted the game to instead of having only one token evil douche option have three of them and be rewarded more for picking them.

How about not provide an evil path at all? By which I mean why even separate things, just provide various options. I think this push to have an "alternative" path is doing more harm than good, leading to binary choice instead of different views. I think it's poor role play to designate yourself as evil, too, because that's something society decides, not people for themselves. Unless you want to do it just for the sake of being evil, in which case I think it's impossible for it to not be juvenile/silly/psycho. I'd rather see different options that would reflect the player's personality (or role play) instead of role play being limited to good and evil and the role play from the player amounting to justifications behind picking the blue or red option. The dialogue between TNO and Ravel from Torment comes to mind: "This may not be *your* answer, but it is *my* answer."

I'm sort of torn on the subject. In some instances cloaks look really nice, in some they look terrible. I'd really like if it was only a visual thing or togglable or something.

Personally, I wouldn't bother making words visually closer to what they sound. More often than not when something like this comes up, my own rendition sounds better to me than the actual one, i.e. it's subjective if the word is not encountered spoken. Generally speaking, I think context is important, too. English is not my native language, so it might be different for others, but when I read a paragraph in English, I'm in "English reading mode", so to speak, meaning that I'll read everything like I think it would sound in English. However, when there's multiple instances of fantasy (foreign?) words, I start reading those differently. Sometimes I even read an English word wrong before I notice its meaning... Going for this what would work for me would be that the foreign words are in italics, just so that my brain pays attention and doesn't just steamroll over these words. About the VO I have just one concern. I think it would be a good idea if when you first hear some word that wildly differs in pronunciation it would also be first encountered in that same VO, preventing the player from already having their own version in their heads and then subsequently thinking about it every time they see/hear it. One thing I'd also like to see is the use of loanwords in common dialogue, specially in areas where cultures come in contact with each other.

I think the point about removing insta-death was more so that you don't have to have arbitrary immunities floating around, specially on bosses. Save scumming is I think more on the defensive side, when a party member dies unexpectedly, not so much for chasing the dice roll for some enemy. As I see it, the entire removal is kind of a cheap solution and I would prefer if there were specific limitations to them instead. Like in D&D, death spells appeared later in the levels, they had double saves or affected only weaker creatures, affected allies, too, etc. In PE, since there's no resurrection these could be even stricter. There's no need to have chance in the equation at all. You can just put the risk factor on the player instead of a dice roll. For example if you have something that kills things below x hp it's up to the player to determine when is a good time to use it, something squishy might go down from Uninjured, something burly would already have to be Near Death. I realize you could count HP and have tables and stuff and be completely metagame if you wanted to, but I think that's annoying enough that people wouldn't bother? You know, instant death effects can be easily be made near-instant or just camouflaged damage, so I'm hoping they're going that route if we really can't have Fingers of Death flying around. What I'm more concerned about is the rationale behind it, stated here: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/463736096556078991 (comments) Specific situational immunities can be a tool in the player's arsenal as any other. The two specific effects (insta-death & hard counter to solve it) don't exist in a vacuum and can be just alternatives. For example those Illithid lairs in BG2. You have that amulet that makes you immune to the nasty attacks there. That does not solve all your problems as they have muscly servants and they can teleport around. If you do not have the amulet, it does not make it impossible. You just need to find a different way to get through. You can summon disposable minions, assassinate them before they can hit you, etc. You have to deal and adapt to their abilities because they are deadly (ok, maybe not 1 hit, but I think it serves the same purpose). The issue that has been mentioned, that you are not prepared->die->reload->prepare->win should not work because of the absence of death spells and counters, but because the encounter would be designed so that not everything hinges on those, but an important part does, just to have another layer to the combat. An example of bad would be the beholder lairs with the Shield of Balduran. About the exploitability from the player's side, that also just needs to be taken into account. If I had a hammer with 10% chance to kill something outright, who says that that should be exploited? Maybe I kill stuff in 5 swings normally and don't need the 10%. More knowledgeable enemies could notice that I have the legendary smasher of awesomeness and keep away. As mentioned before you can change the chance to something else too. Or even if I wanted to explot that weapon I wouldn't spam reloads, but base my party's power around survivability, so that the weapon has a chance to proc. Other limitations from death spells I've already mentioned. I might be reading to much into it, but I just want to express my concerns that "averaging out" the combat might make it bland in the long run and that various creatures might lose their individuality or just atmosphere in general. Besides, tell me that you don't enjoy when once in a while a game lets you go on a power trip and you demolish a whole area of baddies without worry .

I think for me a game becomes "grindy" when my enjoyment of the parts between various goals drops past a certain point. There's many causes of that, most often monotony of the gameplay. For example when I rush-search a dungeon just to get to the boss or and complete some quest. This isn't necessarily just for combat either. It's the same feeling when I need to run back and forth a hundred times or need to reexplore the same area multiple times or get a checklist of minor quests off my back. The game can feel grindy even disregarding this, if the pacing isn't how it suits me. it maybe be the best thing since sliced bread, but a constant "adrenaline high" from intensive combat is off putting to me. I just can't handle a constant mental readiness and reactivity. On the other side of the coin, drudging through lines and lines of dialogue can be just as grindy. As you can read in this post, I feel that this topic is extremely subjective, depending on each individual where a certain line is. And not just that, I think that these lines change through time, too. I know I'll never recapture the magic of when I first played various IE games. Regardless that I can play them right now again it's just not the same thing. I considered IWD2 to be the perfect blend between combat/story/puzzles/etc for something I'd consider an action rpg, being its own game rather than an emulation of Diablo2. Replaying it again after years I found it less desirable, just giving up after reaching and remembering all the hoops and turns at the Hand fortress (which I previously enjoyed!). You know what, it changes even day by day depending how I feel... Back to PE; It says that it harkens back to the good old day of Infinity games. So I assume that the game won't be "modernized" and provide instant gratification every 3 seconds. So I do think that at some point it will feel grindy. Though how much and in what way remains to be seen, since this can be a pacing tool in and of itself.

The biggest issues I have with various systems is that they favor specialization in something much more than what could be called sensible stat placement. When some stat ends up being 10x higher than another one. Now this happens much more often in games where you have points to put into stats often, so I'm inclined to prefer more static approaches. On the other hand I very much like stat increases as for me they sort of symbolize the growth of the character both mentally and physically. For example I particularly enjoyed PS:T stat gains, not the ones from leveling, but the ones from the gameplay. It felt like some kind of achievement that stays with you. However the D&D system is unsuited I think, as things quickly break down, especially at high levels. The base stats are I think of paramount importance in most systems, being the most desirable thing you can get as they increase the effectiveness of a wide range of functions or those that you use most (usually depending on how many base stats there are). I think it would be a good idea to switch some of the "weight" to the skills themselves instead, especially in a game like PE (The classes seems to be hinging on one "thing", but with multiple abilities to change it or branch into other functions. Additionally it seems they're trying to take an approach where things are regulated more by synergy than set limits). One approach I could envision would be to make the base stats biological limits to one's capabilities, rather than their description. In Infinity games the race determined how high a stat could go when you were rolling. Arcanum went a step further and made race determine how high a stat could eventually go with whatever bonuses. Here it could be a per-person thing instead, with the learning/training process being integrated into abilities. This might not do anything, because people would still go for a stat they find the most useful, but it could allow some branching instead of specialization, sort of fitting the character build to the stats instead of the other way around ("I'll never hit as hard as that person, but I will compensate with xy which I can do better and achieve a similar result"). Another idea coming from the same train of thought would be to have abstracted stats (maybe 4, mental/physical power/flexibility?) and have abilities use specific amounts of each. For example for persuading someone you'd use 20% of mental power and 80% mental flexibility. Maintaining that rage could be 60/40 physical/mental power. Maybe some abilities can be upgraded to use more of something or less of something else. This could of course be used with any number of base stats, but the complication would rise exponentially, so I think it would be good to keep it low. Now even with standard systems I'd urge to keep every stat useful in a prominent way. For example I though it a really good idea in Dragon Age 2 to make health only increase through Con (or whatever was it). Sadly it was still not worth distributing stats as the optimal approach was still to dump almost everything into one. In a party based games min-maxing is even more evident as the difference potential is even larger with more characters.