aluminiumtrioxid

It'd very nice if every region you visit would get a small narrated sequence, describing the general feel of the area. Some between chapters would be nice as well. BG2, I'm looking at you. (And I like what I see. Very much.)

If slavery is a theme of the game, of course we should be allowed to own some. (With properly disgusting dialog options on the part of the character.) But it shouldn't be a feature just for its utility.

In D&D 4.0, you've got an action point after two encounters if you didn't rest between, and you could spend one to regain a used power (whether daily or encounter), but you could only spend one AP per character per encounter. If we're going with a similar mechanism, I'd like to see this implemented, too. Or, even better, use different levels of abilities (like the spell levels in D&D), and give out a different number of action points based on how difficult an encounter was. Higher levels would mean a higher number of AP would be needed to regain the ability. Thus, you wouldn't need to worry about "level-appropiate" encounters.

Failure is just as fun as winning, as long as it is presented in a way that is entertaining. (Not necessarily comical; tragedy is also a form of entertainment.) I am against being able to "fully win" (or, at least, it should be only accomplished on an n-th playthrough, where you have some experience about what kind of consequences should you expect - or with extreme luck).

When I think of Mass Effect, I'm really not that amazed by the originality of having hot tentacled lesbian blue elves (long lifespan, advanced culturally, strong in magic), Generic Honorable Lifeform and Generic Warlike Lifeform. All they did was creating unique look for known tropes. I say, better to have a spin on familiar races, then we'll at least have our expectations turned upside down.

[Perception success] There is no "we". Only *you* (and a small minority of posters) seem to be fixating on rape exclusively. You like stating the obvious, don't you? If your argument is that only disgusting perverts want to include rape, and they do so because they want to **** to the sight of rapists gangbanging helpless women (as dlux implied, which you liked - thus it seems quite logical that you agree), I think it's rather important whether the OP and the supporters of "hard realism" are the ones really fixated on rape, or not.

Or have new items available (for crafting, or buying), based on your ingame deeds, like in PS:T?

I'd prefer such an enemy type. But why would they have to be dragons? There are plenty of less cliché creatures which could fill that niche.

The tabletop version of Dragon Age was one of the best p&p games in the last few years, so... why not?

You'd need to aim very carefully (unless it's a fireball, but in that case, you've got your explosion either way) to accomplish that... magic criticals, anybody?

[Perception success] There is no "we". Only *you* (and a small minority of posters) seem to be fixating on rape exclusively. OP just wants some general grim & gritty stuff going on, and argues that it's a powerful tool. (I think it is, but it's also unnecessary - the developers have proven repeatedly that they are more than capable of delivering strong emotional impact without resorting to such inelegant plot devices. I, however, voted for full realism - if they do decide to present such themes, they shouldn't be held back.)

I don't know... 6-7 classes seem redundant to me. If you have so many options at the beginning, it's unlikely to have kits, too. I'm fairly sure we'll have two different kinds of fighters (ranged/melee or tank/DPS oriented), a rogue-type class, and two kinds of spellcasters (definitely not the healer/DPS division... perhaps one oriented towards summoning, and the other one towards damage?). And maybe a gadgeteer (including alchemist and gunslinger archetypes) and a psionic. Hard to tell. What I'd like to see is that every class makes use of every ability. Eg. a warrior with high perception, intelligence and charisma can use his/her tactical mastery, leadership and ability to analyze the situation on the battlefield to buff companions. An intelligent rogue could be ideal for setting traps/creating poisons; one with high charisma could have a lot of combat abilities based on misdirection, feinting and bluffing; high strength would allow for a more direct, ruffian-like character (perhaps wielding a club, instead of getting extra damage multiplier with backstabbing, you could stun opponents; or have a specialized "dirty fighting"-style focused on weakening opponents). A mage with high strength and constitution could be more like an eldritch knight or witch-hunter, using his/her own magic to cancel the enemy's. And that's my problem with 6-7 classes: you either have very wide archetypes which can encompass very different kinds of characters, or create a different class for each subtype. That number seems either too many or too less. (It could be circumvented, however, by having free skill selection and using classes as themes - e.g. you could have a nature-oriented character, and become like a druid if you pick up spellcasting, or a ranger if you specialize towards stealth, etc.; or the whole thought experiment is moot, if they are something completely different - which I find rather unlikely, since PE is said to be a world of unique little twists on familiar archetypes, not of completely new ones.)

THAT. I want rain spells, and I want them to be useful (besides the obvious "increased damage of frost/lightning type attacks").

It would be nice to have no generic counterspell-type options (shield-type magics don't count as such!), but be able to unravel any enemy magic you know the formula of.

It would be even nicer to be able finish the game with killing everyone indirectly. "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy"

If you could gain passive bonuses or certain abilities when your party slots are not filled (even better if you get different bonuses if it's simply an open slot, or if said companion just doesn't tag along - possibly further modified by their disposition towards you). Or you could send them adventuring on their own (doing so would save you time, when it's important in a quest), but then only the dialog options matching said companions' general disposition remain open. (And you lose their passive bonus.)

Strange, as soon as I've seen that there is a settlement called "Road's End", I suspected that it will be our starting place. It just sounds too cool to pass up.

A possible problem with such "begot" character is that, while he may be good at one-off occasion as a non-companion NPC, for a companion, he doesn't have a room for character development. I imagined him/her as a somewhat distant, yet important and powerful mentor type of character.

If we really have to include this topic in this game, too, they should make playing an open-minded liberal guy a little harder. One way to this would be showing that certain stereotypes may have their roots in reality (eg. orcs do get a penalty to their intelligence, therefore, on the average, they are stupider), or ditching the usual "the other side of the coin" type of character (usually companion), who seems to exist solely to prove a racist main character wrong. The other, more secure way is to be branded by the gameworld's racists as "xenos lover", and be subject to harrassment because of your beliefs. (Actually, there could be an otherwise entirely likeable but strongly racist NPC [hard to pull off that one, but I have trust in the writing team's skills], who refuses to help you if you openly support the ones he has prejudices against.)

Mystwalker has a fairly good point there, we have no way to know that the soul stuff is for real, or just a try on the world's denizens' part to explain how magic works.

A great idea. It would be even better if you could choose story difficulty, too. On higher difficulties, time limits could be harsher, the consequences more dire, and bad things would happen to good people way more often.

I prefer it Planescape/Arcanum style, where the system hides options from you, if you don't meet their prerequisite, and you don't get an indicator about which option appears why (so no "[Persuasion]" before the persuasive option). But I'd be also content with being presented with all options but not shown the thresholds I have to meet in order to succeed.

Do you know what that sound is, highness? Those are the shrieking eels. If you don't believe me, just wait. They always grow louder when they're about the feed on human flesh. My only problem with the really weird spells in in their capacity to change the theme of the game. It doesn't matter if the big bad boss killed your parents, wife, and kids, if you kill him by turning his head into an umbrella the game ends up goofy. Weird doesn't necessarily mean absurd or silly, if it's presented in the right way. Although I actually did chuckle reading your post

I'd argue with that, mainly because the gameplay itself kinda killed the horror feel with the ceaseless massacre it degraded to in the second half of the story. But to stay on-topic: I'd also very much appreciate some horror in the game.

...Aaaaand if I want to play a generally unlikable and/or socially awkward character, there is no way the supposed right-hand man wouldn't outshine him. Actually, it wouldn't be so bad, being manipulated by a lowly NPC :D