Piccolo

I still think the XP way gives the player too much freedom to level up any skill they want in a way that isn't directly tied to their interactions with the gameworld. Okay, then to use another example - a warrior's sword breaks in the middle of a dungeon. Unable to find a replacement, he has to rely on basic sneak skills to get out alive. In such a situation, I fail to see why the warrior should continue to receive XP which can just be planted onto their sword skills, when logically it should be their sneak skill that improves. A player who is interested in roleplaying a character with great skill in speechcraft should naturally spend a lot of time performing speech-related tasks, such as persuading NPCs, learning languages, etc. Is it really so hard to balance the game so that such a skill levels up at a healthy rate compared to combat skills?

Well to use the example the OP gave, his mana might run out forcing him to use a melee weapon. In such a situation, I really don't see why his magic skills should benefit at all from the experience.

Of course it should go to the sword skill. Why should your magic skill benefit from you wielding a sword...? Collecting XP then distributing it however you want is dumb, overly simplistic, and unrealistic. As i've said in a previous thread, Bethesda haven't really implemented their skill systems well in their games (for a number of reasons), but they definitely have the right idea with skill progression actually being relevant and tied to the actions your character performs. this a bazillion times... I hate the notion that i kan kill a 100 kobolds with a dagger or staff and i can somehow "store away" that killing XP for my magic skills...how the hell does that make any sense? of course i'm only ok with growing cross class skills i use if there is no silly level cap that says "sorry chum, you seem to have maxed out you XP tank...too bad, maybe next time you will run away from those kobolds so you can kill them with magic like a good mage." Your argument goes at the window when you realize you can throw fireballs from your fingertips, tell me what is realistic about that. Its a game, I want to have control over how my character evolves, I know it *MIGHT* seem more realistic to have the game level up based on what you use, but it forces you down a particular path you do not want to go. Also, how do you level up skills that you do not use a lot like charisma? Speech? sneaking...etc. In skyrim, you had to do the horrible "grinding" of skills that you did not use just to level it up. like constantly sneaking, or throwing fireballs in the air, over, and over, and over again just to level it up. Autolevel was not created to make the game realistic, it was created for the dumb masses who do not play RPG's. Give me skill points to distribute how I want, do not make my choices for me. So how about some sort of compromise then, as I suggested in another thread? Skills improve slowly, relevant to the actions your character performs (fairly common actions, like hacking a monster to death with a sword), but you can also gain experience for completing more significant tasks or goals that really challenge your character's abilities. Such experience can then be distributed freely.

I'm fine with them leaving half-breeds out personally. I can see the roleplaying appeal of being a mix instead of a standard race, but it seems like a lot of time and effort that could be better spent on making the standard races and cultures as unique and interesting as possible.

Yes, I like this. Hopefully it's in PE.

Skyrim is dumbed down because they removed attributes, several skills, made progression quicker, and made everything too reliant on silly perks that shouldn't even be perks (like % damage increase). Not because skill progression is actually relevant to the actions your character performs. Think about it. What's more dumb: - Kill a monster in any way you want, get XP, level any skill you want or - Only gaining a skill increase if/when you actually perform a task that warrants it ... The XP way is for kiddies who want too much freedom. "i'm a mage, but I should be able to run around with a hammer at any time and still improve my magic skill"

Of course it should go to the sword skill. Why should your magic skill benefit from you wielding a sword...? Collecting XP then distributing it however you want is dumb, overly simplistic, and unrealistic. As i've said in a previous thread, Bethesda haven't really implemented their skill systems well in their games (for a number of reasons), but they definitely have the right idea with skill progression actually being relevant and tied to the actions your character performs.

Here are some of the stats i'd like to see for armor: Weight (which obviously has an impact on stamina and how fast you can run) Movement (impacts how agile you are in combat. This differs from weight in that piece of plate armor might be fairly light, but still restrictive of arm/leg movement, whereas chainmail might allow for easy movement, but be quite heavy) Durability (how long the armor lasts before it starts to wear) Cost (not necessarily reflective of quality. Some pieces might simply cost more because they're rare or ornimental) Protection against piercing blows (such as spear thrusts, arrows, and blade stabs) Protection against cutting blows (standard sword hacks / slashes) Protection against crushing blows (heavy blunt weapons, such as hammers and maces) Protection against [insert magic/elemental damage type - e.g fire damage] So basically, there should be pros and cons to every type of armor in the game, and the player will have to pick the armor that's not only right for their character but also right for a certain situation... instead of simply looking for an obvious "best" set that trumps all other sets.

I like his style. I'm in favour.

While Bethesda haven't always implemented it right, I prefer the TES approach of more natural skill progression that's actually relevant to the tasks your character performs. Just getting XP for killing stuff is a bit too gamey and unrealistic for my liking. Or perhaps a combination of both would be good. Slow, natural progression based on your character's actions, with occasional experience rewarded for accomplishing significant tasks that really test your character's abilities (not necessarily just killing big monsters or bosses).

While it can be fun creating a whole team sometimes, I generally prefer to concentrate on one character, with a lot of depth in terms of stats and customization. Also, it's nice having really interesting, well-designed NPCs as potential companions. Having the option of both would be ideal.

The way I see it, an RPG is about taking control of a uniquely defined character or characters who can progress, and interact with the gameworld in a meaningful way (i.e. the gameworld should respond to them, and they should respond to the gameworld) Having a good story told to you (the player) might make the game more entertaining, but it's really not what an RPG is supposed to be about. Story alone is not a defining feature of an RPG. It's just another means (through choices) for the player to use their character(s) to interact meaningfully with the gameworld, and to express and define who their character(s) is/are. If you start taking away storyline choices and just railroad the player through a linear storyline (regardless of how entertaining that storyline may be) then the game is much less of an RPG as a result. In fact, i'd argue that it's better to have no main storyline at all in an RPG than one without choices and consequences.

In a fantasy setting, I like the voices to sound unique to their race or culture. A good example would be the Dunmer in Morrowind. They have a really distinct, raspy voice. Failing that, i'd at least like the voices to sound neutral. It really bothers me in fantasy games when I hear an NPC talk and immediately think "he/she is [insert Earth nationality]". Failing that, i'll settle for any Old World accents. Just NOT New World (i.e. American or Australian).

I love 2D graphics, whether it be for isometric RPGs or strategy games. 3D just isn't a substitute, and it's fairly ridiculous that new games coming out look worse than games released in the 90s.

That's a great interview. The parts about budget are especially reassuring. They seem pretty confident about what they can produce on a kickstarter budget, despite the pessimisim from a lot of people on these forums who seem to think they won't even be able to reach the same level of content/quality as the IE games.

I think it's a lot better to actually take the time to read lots of different opinions inside a thread rather than just glance at some poll results, and i'm sure Obsidian do that. Taking in lots of opinions about the game is a great way to get an idea of what the fans want, but the devs also need to use their own best judgement as well. For every good idea, opinion, or suggestion, there's often a lot of bad ones.

It surprises me how many people are in favour of some or all characters being voiced. I don't think such people really understand just how detrimental voice acting is....

There's a good reason why people usually say the book is superior to the film adaptation. Books are more detailed / descriptive, and also leave a lot more to the reader's imagination. I think the same can be applied to written vs. voiced dialogue in video games. Then of course there's the huge benefit of text being very easy to edit, not just for devs, but also modders... - The only real potential benefit I see from voice acting is greater immersion, and more often than not this goal just gets completely shat on by poor voice actors, or re-used voice actors spouting out the same few lines of dialogue over and over again. Besides, some of the most immersive games i've played have been almost completely text driven.

Climbing would be great as a character skill, if it's not too tricky to implement. It could really open up a lot of roleplaying possibilities....

No. Absolutely not. Fully voiced dialogue is one of, if not THE worst thing to happen to the RPG genre. At the very most, voice acting should be used for basic greetings and world ambience. Everything else, text.

The planet Namek.

Definitely. A lot of people who don't know much about game engines (like myself) will draw all sorts of negative conclusions. If it's too early for them to show screenshots or at least some vision of what they want the game to look like, then perhaps they should have waited a while longer before revealing their choice of engine.

That may not be cartoony, but it still looks very smooth on certain surfaces (particularly walls). It's just not anywhere near as detailed as 2D.

2D backgrounds is what I mean when I say 2D. I consider TOEE very much a 2D game, even if the characters/objects are 3D... If PE ends up looking like TOEE i'll be very happy.

Not sure what to make of Unity. The game can still go 2D instead of 3D, right? I really hope so, because i've yet to see a 3D top down / isometric game that even comes close to looking as good as many 2D examples.