Stiler

Hope it does well when they release the new KS. Just like InXile did when they announced the Torment kickstarter even though Wasteland 2 wasn't close to being done, there's a lot of turnover in development studios (concept artist, writers, etc) that will finish before the full game is done and they have to start working on something else or the studios risk having to let them go.

I think it's like what InXile did (Wasteland 2 guys) , kickstarting Torment before Wasteland 2 is out. When making a game there's an overlap where you have a number of people that work on the earlier process (concept, writing, etc) that is finished before the game is released. When this hits you either put those people onto other projects you have or (sadly) they also get fired in some cases. So I think with Eternity they may be hitting tihat point now where they need to have something in the pipeline for some of the people to work on.

Maybe they intended to have them be different so the kickstarter people would feel like they are rewarded for having pledged earlier on?

IMO stretch goals are good, and I'd like to see new companions/more wilderness area's. However I wouldn't want it to affect the planned release date or push the game back further. Are the stretch goals intended to be done before release or a post-launch content patch?

True, true. I just figured maybe there was some "Actually... the way the scales were designed, it would even be pretty difficult to bypass them with even an UPWARD swing, even if you could effectively land such a blow in the heat of combat" tidbit someone had to toss in, heh. I am ignorant and seek knowledge. Of course, once you get something like that, you've got that "It's pretty unlikely that anyone's going to try and swing UPWARD at me" thing going on. So, if you're the one person who focuses on perfecting upward-directed maneuvers for that very reason, you'd probably have the element of surprise. Still less feasible than regular combat techniques, I'm sure, no matter how much you focus on it. I've just got an unhealthy interest in "that's just crazy enough to work, and no one will expect it" maneuvers. 8P Actually depending on the stances it was not uncommon at all for people to swing upward. Of the five cornerstones of basic longsword stances there is the "tail" stance, where you hold the sword downward , pointing behind you (hence the name) or the fool stance, where you hold the sword in front pointing to the ground. From both of these two stances an upward blow is quite easy and natural to pull off. That makes me wonder if stances will play a role in PE. That's another things that most movies/games seem to ignore, stances when using a sword was one of key things that affected combat, the stnace you use determined moves you could make , counters, positing, etc, stances were a key part of sword combat.

You keep looking at it as though the class has to be taken from the warrior and mage and rolled into a new character using those same skillsets. imo a good hybrid would be NEITHER a warrior nor a mage, but a class that is different from both, neither a "terrible warrior" or "worse mage" but a class that in it's own regard is different from BOTH with unique skillsets to that specific class that makes him different from both a regular warrior/mage and makes his class stand on it's on, balanced of course. I was simply using Jedi as something that (I assume most) people have seen and could "picture" when I talk about the types of abilities a magic using warrior "could" use, how different a Jedi fights with his weapons vs a regular swordsman because of their access to the force, though a magic using warrior in PE can be something quite different, I was merely using it as an "example." It's not about being "better," but something different. A warrior for example, could have better access to using all weapons (IE axes, swords, shields, etc) as well as unique combat skills of their own, perhaps the warriors are better at taking damage (whereas the arcane fencers are better at avoiding damage, IE a type of magic teleportation/planeshifting that allows them to dodge attacks). I don't think anyone is asking for this kind of class to be the "best warrior and mage ever!" but rather to simply stand on it's own and be different/unique. I mean a mage is squishy, stands at the back and shoots fireballs/nukes the hell out of things, doing massive damage, etc. Whereas the Arcane Fencer is more about melee combat while using his magic to help him within that type of thing, wearing armour and things a warrior would use. It should play completely different then a regular "mage." For example, using Dragon Age: Origins again, you were able to learn 3 classes in total, could be a straight up warrior/berserker or go arcane warrior, both were good in their own regard , neither was the "best" but both offered very different playstyles and advantages/disadvantages. Why would people play a warrior over an Arcane Fencer? The same reason some people play a mage over a knight, or a rogue over a cleric, variety and the types of things that appeal to him. As I've pointed out in previous comments, you don't need to look at him as a "gimped warrior/mage" rather just a unique class in of itself. You mention a Cleric in D&D, you ever play one? Clerics are GREAT warriors and offer advantages over rolling straight up fighters, they are able to wear armour and do decent damage, they don't feel "gimped" in any way really and they aren't just "mages" in armour either. (At least in 3.5 D&D).

I've always wanted to play this type of character in rpgs. In most rpgs you are either stuck going "generic tank warrior or leather weather rogue dps melee fighter" or having to be a mage in a pointy hat who stands in the back firing spells. This is an area where a few games have gotten decent at trying. Dragon Age had their "Arcane Warrior" which I loved and wish more rpgs had something similar. http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Arcane_Warrior It allowed a Mage to use a sword and also allowed for him to use his magic score to be used in place of the strength requirement on weapons/armour, so you could wear things a normal mage couldn't. Also in D&D terms they had the Mystic Warrior class (at least in 3.5 edition, not sure if they still have it). This I do not get, WHY does he need to be gimped in any way? A magic using Warrior should be NEITHER a "mage who simply wears armour" but-still plays like a mage, nor should he be a warrior who simply throws fireballs. They should be their own independent class that has both strengths and weaknesses (just like ANY class should have) but they should have their own role they do well and not feel like they are simply gimped warroirs/mages. Their skills should offer things that neither warriors nor Mages can do or have access to. I mean if a Warrior fights a mystic warrior, do you think the mystic warrior would just fight with his martial skills? No he'd make use of his magic to overcome the challenge, and that's where the fun/excitement (at least for me) comes from such a type of class. Think for example, if he can use telekinetic powers to control his blade when he needs to. HE gets disarmed and can use magic to take hold of his weapon (Whereas a normal warrior couldn't and might have to take another die roll or something to regain his weapon). Or even having the ability to pull/push people away from him if need be (think Star Wars lol). You get my point, when I think Mystic warriors I think of something similar to how say a Jedi Knight might fight, witht heir force powers, though obviosuly something uniquie/more their own for PE or whatever game they are in.

Haven't visited one of these threads in a while, see it's developed into a bit of a historical arms/armour topic as well. Has anyone brought up Bucklers? This is an area that I have yet to ever see a game (or movie) really do justice at all. Bucklers are generally treated as the "crappy smallest form of shields" that you start out with and move up toward the often "Bigger = better" type of progression, where you use a shield for defense and it usually takes away from your attack (IE as most shield users in rpgs are treated as "Tanks" of some sort). When in truth Bucklers were one of the oldest and also longest forms of fighting, even outlasting most of the more well known styles of shields. Bucklers, unlike most other shield types, weren't strapped to your arm but rather simply held in your hand, they were small and quite light. You could let go of them if need be (IE if someone caught it or attempted to pull it) and on the flip side, they could also serve as an offensive weapon to boot. You could have sharpened edges to them which could serve as a means to cut with the edges of your buckler. A spike in the middle or teeth/latch (which could even be attached/folded away when not needed). Which could serve as a means to "catch" someone's weapon (and then pull it from their grasp or hold it away so you can attack). It was such an extremely versatile item that was so useful, it was used even more so then many shield types, yet it's often far overlooked when it comes to any type of modern media. They could even be used better against polearms then other shields, as you could let go of them they wouldn't be as easly "caught" like bigger shields by a polearm. Main disadvantage to bucklers were vs range (Archers), but with plate armour that was negated quite a bit. You often see bucklers a lot in many historical old paintings, usually hanging from the hips of soldiers and knight's, even more then you might see the larger shields. It would be nice if bucklers would get treated well in PE and not just be the usual "early game low quality shield" that they usually are. As far as combat goes. I'd love to see any kind of half swording style combat or some form of good use of trips and catches. Combat evolved throughout history and armoured longsword fighting could rely a lot on trips and other styles that mixed in quite a bit of "wrestling" into combat. As you'd want to strike at a weak/vunerable part of their body (Arm pit, groin, neck, visor slits, etc) so getting someone to the ground was an excellent way at doing this. Here is a good read on a way that two armoured men in plate with swords would most likely have fought, nothing like you might see in movies: http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html There are historical documents on fighting in the middle ages, sadly not a ton of them have survived but there are a few, some of my favorite are from Hans Talhoffer who was a German fencing master in the mid 15th century who learned a lot from the techniques of Johannes Liechtenauer ( a 14th century fencing master). There are some great manuals you can find here and look at various fighting styles and combat maneuvers they did. http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm Sorry if I got a bit off topic. Regarding the "looks" of weapons/armour, I think many real historical armour and weapons look quite nice, and is also an area often overlooked. Most people for example picture "plate" armour as being just all the same silver colouring and clean/plain, but there were many great designed suits of armour and it could often be decorated with everything from paintings (you can paint on armour, look at the "Black Sallets" as they are known) and even some had ways to attach cloth to them for decoration purposes. IE: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2700 Then you get into things like Inlays, embossing, the color of the steel (various techniques can be done to make the colour different, from black, to blue, to golden, etc) among riveting and other design choices. "Real" armour could be quite colourful and not at all like many people think. Not really a fan of the fantasy style of Giant/huge Pauldrons and spikes protruding from everywhere though lol. Though I understand it's a fantasy game and I don't expect it to be realistic or to adhere to our own historical types of armoru/weapons , just my personal opinion.

Personally, I am hoping for at least a non-old school UI. While I enjoy older games the UI's from them I can gladly do without. There has been leaps and bounds in newer game UI's, mmo's are a prime example of how much UI's have changed from those days. I am a fan of a minimalist UI approach, the LESS of the UI I have to see the better for me. While I understand some people will like the throwback UI design I really hope there's a more up to date UI design or at least some kind of option for it. Allowing us the ability to re-size windows, show/hide things we don't want to see, the ability to make it opaque (IE I don't really need to see the little statue and other artistic designs on the UI, that is valuable screen space that can be showing the background). In many newer games they have did this wonderfully by having thei UI "hide" and only show you information when you need it. Then after that it fades and goes away until you need it again. Such as the chat window for example, when you are out exploring and no one has commented or said any dialogue after so long, it can simply fade and go away, as that information is no longer needed. Same goes for combat information on the UI when you aren't actually in combat. Basically all I am saying is please offer for those of us that want it a minimalist/least intrusive UI so we can see more of the game world while playing .

For freedom? For choices? In a single player rpg taking a class and making them unique is one of the most fun aspects to me, especially if its' allowed. Take for example the Recent PAth of Exile game, while not exactly like PE it has a very open skill system that allows you to build your character in a TON of different ways, there's so many ways you can build each character class that you can have two people that are the same "Base" class but play completely differently. Most rpgs go with a strict system, classes are structured in a way where you pick the class and each is different from one another, mages wear robs, warriors wear plat earmour, rogues in leather, etc. This leads to classes feeling different, but also classes that feel stale/static. It also takes choice away from the player. I have long been a fan of the D&D style "multiclass" system because it allows people to think/make up some very interesting combinations of characters and how they develop them. Many computer rpgs don't allow this and you are stuck on pre designed classes that offer little customization , at least to a great degree like others allow. For example, one of my favorite styles of characters to play is a hybrid magic-melee fighter. In most rpgs this kind of class is non existant. You either have your generic mage that stands in the back in robes looking like gandalf firing fireballs or you have a fighter wearing plate standing in the front taking damage. When rpgs allow classes to be opened, built differently and to have the freedom to use what they want that allows people like me to make up classes we enjoy, even if the game itself doesn't offer it as a "base" class. This can sometimes work and sometimes doesn't. One way it doesn't work is when the choice/freedom is offered to you to do one thing (IE wear armour) but at such a huge penalty that it's not really viable. That's why I like things such as this to be "viable." You mention viable as though I want all classes to be the same, and that's about as far from it as you can get. A monk wearing plate armour should not function like a warrior who wears plate armour, that kind of defeats the point of that "choice." When I mention viable I mean that the choice you make comes with both reasons for/against it, but not at the cost of making one choice clearly the "right" choice and the other one the "Wrong" choice, rather one where you can make the choice and through careful planning build your character around that choice and develop them into something unique based on that that works and isn't nerfed/terrible to play as. Logically if you take a monk, slap him in plate armour, over the course of his lifetime he would adapt, he'd train in it, learn how to use it, develop his own skills through that. Doesn't that make more logical sense? New skills/feats could open up which you can train to make that kind of play style "work" for that class, even if it's not following the stereotypical "cloth" wearing monk who uses his fist.

I am aware of that, just going by what I've read. It just seemed like , while armour would give you more protection, it comes at the cost of the core-concept/ability of the monk, and thus defeats the point of "choice" if that choice isn't really that viable. Why pick a monk, slip plate onto him when you are basically nerfing your own character? Using it at specific points, while that might be helpful, I am talking more about making it the "main" thing for the class, if someone wants to go into the game wearing armour on their monk the entire game, it doesn't seem that viable from what was said.

In the latest update, talking about monks, it mentions "here are no restrictions on armor and weapons – you could wear plate and use a sword, if you wanted to, and the talent system is flexible enough so you could build a great monk that specialized in that gear." then later goes on to mention: "Sure, you can do that, but that plate armor will inhibit your ability to get Wounds, which means you don't get as many special attacks. And unarmed attacks are among the fastest types of attacks, so a weaponless monk can get rid of his Wounds faster than any armed monk, so he will suffer very little of their damage-over-time effects. That's like having extra hit points for free! FOR FREE! Who wouldn't want that?!" So really, how viable is it to wear armour or use weapons? IMO I'd like if each choice was more flexible, where there's both advntages and disadvantages where each choice is still viable. why would anyone choose to wear the plate armour, if the unarmoured monk performs better then the armoured plus gets better attacks, etc? Where's the advantage to that? Having the ability to wear/use anything is great, but the actual design of classes, abilities, their combat, etc needs to support this ability. Where there's no clear "if you're a monk it's absolutely BEST to not wear armour, otherwise what's the point? allt he min/maxers will simply play the class how it was designed, with no armour and using their fist, because it's clearly the "best" option available for that class. I mean, is it really a "choice" if wearing plate armour basically from what is said) neuters your attacking/damage ability? That just seems like an option for people who don't care about min/maxing. Why would I pick a monk, then throw plate on them, if another class is better at it and more viable? What I mean is that to me, it would seem better to give each class viable reasons to wear/use different weapons, with there not simply being one "clear" best choice to go with and hte others are weaker compared to another class for that type. So a monk in armour plays differently then a monk without armour, but also differently then say, a warrior with armour, so a monk in armour isn't simply a worse" warior" (if he uses armour) or a worse monk if he uses it (because his attack/damage suffers greatly). Surely there could be more viable ways to design it with trade offs, especially in terms of attacking/core combat abilities (it sees the monk in armour would really be missing out on the "main" point of his class if he wears it, kind of like telling a magic user "sure you can wear plate, but you can't cast any spells in it!, not really a choice then imo). I mean for example, how about instead of simply saying a monk in plate armour has more protection (and thus doesn't get wounded - which equals no attack skills) something like: With Plate armour: Advtanges: More base protection from attacks Ability to wear heavier armour at lower stat requirments (because of monk training/stamina/willpower (mid'ish lv ability) became one with his armour - The monk has now gained the ability to build attack power (IE what he builds with his "wounds) by damage inflicted to his armour. Disadvantages: Slower attacks Makes more noise (IE no sneaking or anything of hte such, enemies are alerted quicker/at a longer radius then a non-armoured monk) Slower wound building (until the one with armour ability) wound healing isn't as quick. Something like that allows BOTH paths to be viable. The armoured character has a harder start, slower wound building/attacks, but after training and time he opens up his wound ability through the armour and is just as viable. on the other hand the non-armoured monk is quicker, quieter, gains his attack power right away (since he doesn't have to train in armour to unlock it) so he has more advantage to attacks from the start rather then having to wait. You could even go deeper then this, I'm not sure how in-depth the skills will be in PE, but you could even go as far as to have different monk abilities that open up depending on what you do. Having like a "armoured monk" skill-tree that opens up with skills that are built around wearing armour, or having the un-armoured skill tree you can go down. Something like that would allow both "builds" to be different, yet viable. Rather then having one clear "viable/better" build and saying "You can build this way...but really why would you? or play this class if you want to use that"

I love Dragons, more western designed ones, a la "Dragonslayer" and Draco from Dragonheart. The thing I would like , if they are in PE, is to have them treated as INTELLIGENT beings, not simply "monsters" or "creatures" to kill for the player. Dragons should be able to be like Humans, both good and bad, or morally gray, they shouldn't all be the same either. There hasn't been many instances of dragons in games that treated them this way, outside of the classic "Draken: Order of the Flame" game from the 90's or so that pops into mind. I want dragons that serve story/quest purposes, can be talked with, reasoned with, aren't simply "AHHHH I'M A MONSTER IMMA EAT YUO!!!1"

The thing is, while many people might aspire to that, it's never been that well represented in rpgs, at least newer ones. The Bioware games as an example, if you want to be a sarcastic "smartass" (IE like Snake Plissken, Bruce Willis in Die hard, etc) you end up having to pick "EVILLLLL" choices and do the actions that go with them, there's no way to be a "Good guy" but have witty dialogue , you either be good and have "mr goody two shoes with a halo over his head" dialogue most of the time, or be "evil" but with all the "Witty/sarcastic tough guy" dialogue. Unless, of course, saying something IS the action. i.e. "No need to go look for your father... he was torn apart by wolves, last time I saw him." When, really, you know he's still alive somewhere. 8P Yes that makes sense, but they need to provide more choices for dialogue options rather then just "good/evil/neutral." Don't tie Every single thing to morality like Bioware games. Only direct actions and dialogue that makes sense (IE Refusing to help someone).

I hope there's quite a diverse sense of accents throughout the game, this was something that Dragon Age: Origins did well, by giving different regions different accents it helped sell the point that the characters ere really from other lands when their voices/accents were that different. Basically they used French accents for people from Orlais, Spanish accents for people from Antiva, etc. One accent I'd love to see is Welsh. Maybe because I'm currently playing Ni No Kuni and the character of Drippy is voiced with a heavy Welsh accent, but it adds character and uniqueness to him (because you really don't hear many Welsh accents in games). See this video, I linked to the time, if for some reason it doesn't work go to the 10minute 21'ish second mark, the little creature is Mr. Drippy. I also would LOVE to see some Sourthern Cajun accents, from Louisiana,

I am really really tired of black and white "good and evil" style choices in many newer rpgs (I'm looking mainly at bioware games). What if I want to play a GOOD guy, but I want to go about it with that witty anti-hero type of character? A la Snake Plissken style? Someone who is "good" but has a kind of sarcastic wit about him, not your usual goody two shoes? Those types of characters are ignored, you either play a "holier then thou" style good guy, and get rewarded, or an "evilllllll" douchbag who does evil things, if you play neutral, or back and fourth you get neither usually. Your ACTIONS and how your character "talks" should be seperate things, not impacting a reward per se imo. Let those of us who want to be a sarcastic wise cracking guy, but with ai heart of gold DO THIS , let us choose a snappy wise response in dialogue, but still go "Save the princess" , don't force good guys to sound like ned flanders while the evil guys get all the wise cracking dialogue. Basically imo rpgs need to stop typing "morality" based on what your character SAYS, but rather what your character DOES. Let us play our character how we want , dialogue wise, and stop connecting dialogue to "action." So if an npc asks us to save someone for example, and you throw out like 4 "responses" to choose from, from sarcastic ones, joking ones, generic good/evil reponses, but then AFTEr that if we want to go save him, and we do, it's THAT ACTION that should be rewarded , not the dialogue you say.

With the new update surrounding details on a few Gods and how they design the pantheon of Gods I thought it'd be an interesting topic to see what the community could come up with for Gods, just for fun. The basic goals as outline in the update were: What is the god's name, and what are his/her "aliases" (e.g., "The Twinned God" for Berath). What is the god's portfolio? That is, what aspects of life or the world do they represent (e.g., mortality, greed, summer, commerce)? What allies and foes do they have amongst the other gods? What are their symbols? How do they manifest in the mortal world? So I figured that'd be a good outline to go on , or close to it as you can get (can't really say what allies/foes since we don't know much of the real PE Gods yet) Here is one quick one I thought up. God name: Thoryven ; Aliases: The Jester/Jokester. The God of Humor, God of tricks, Chance, and Riddles Symbols: Smiling Face, Crescent Moon and stars (or whatever might represent luck in the world of PE). How does he manifest: As a wayward traveler, usually in a tavern or place where people go to have fun/enjoy themselves. He tells jokes and brings humor to things, but also likes to test people through riddles as well as games of chance. He likes to reward people who take well calculated but smart risks, but also likes to make fools of those who are foolhardy and brash without thinking.

I know how Josh feels. Had a family dinner for Christmas and walked away with a brand new Flu, all gift wrapped and everything , finally getting over it though.

I'd be good with any kind of expression they can show. Showing expressions and things helps sell the story and feeling behind the words/text and voices. It all adds up to me, and the more the merrier I say. Good voicework that can take emphasis/words and put them together to emit emotion is a step up, then visually seeing such emotion on the characters faces is the next step up. For anyone that remembers their teachers reading them books in school, there were those teachers that'd just "read" it like it was a newspaper and half of the class wouldn't pay attention/would fall asleep, then you'd have that one really good teacher who put emphasis on words (and might have even used different voices) and made that story "come to life" in your imagination because of that extra thing they did, it really helped imo.

Ah yes, the dog in DA:O was great. That's kind of what I'm getting at. Where they are treated more like a companion/npc, with their own personality and story-elements in cutscenes, rather then just a usual cheap summon combat role that you let die and resummon and don't really know nor care about them the same as a party member that you get to know over the course of the game. Basically I think it'd be nice if pets just felt more like traditional party members then "throw away" objects, like the hound in DA:O. However it'd be nice to have choices different then a dog, for a ranger they could have like a wolf, a bear, or a hawk/ferrets or something cool (lol totally makes me think of the Beastmaster films with those two ferrets). Wizards could have basic imp's and things, and as mentioned above powerful Demon's that you get to know and learn about. It could even tie a LOT into the whole "soul" aspect of the game and provide some great story elements.

Pets have been done before, in rpgs, action games, and mmo's. However I have felt that many games have simply not taken the time or want to do pets with any real meaningful impact for the player. Many classic style rpgs treat pets more of a "combat" mechanic. Where you either summon a pet (or familiar for mages) which can only last "x" time or until killed. These kinds of pets are usually quite generic/throw away and serve more of a "combat" move or something similar. MMO's on the other hand (especially when it comes to ranger/hunter type of classes) have went further and allow players to actually find and "tame" rare animals found in the worlds, some that can be unique and have their own specific skillsets. While also allowing you to rename them and things. However the drawback to mmo pets is that well, they follow you and play a role in combat, but outside of this they have no character or personality really. The main thing that I find lacking in almost any game with "pets" is the lack of character or story-elements that reflect that pet. I mean when I think of a ranger who has tamed an animal and had it for years you would think, just like real life, that the pet and ranger would get to know each other better and developer a relationship with that pet having his own personality/character. I mean for anyone here who has pets IRL, you know just how different dogs can be from each other or cats. As well in games, if a character has a pet they are usually strictly based for combat, and have no purpose within cutscenes/story elements. You don't really "interact" with them outside of combat. Howevear a few games have did this somewhat (IE fallout, and the Fable series toa degree). I mean think about Baldur's Gate for example. Minsc and Boo were two of the fan favorite characters, and Boo would have been so much less memorable without the story elements and banter between Minsc. That added to the character and provided persoanlity to them both, which is almost non-existant when it comes to players and any pets/familars they have. There are also plenty of examples of characters in novels/films that have animal companions that are treated this way. Such as the popular Jon Snow and Ghost for a more current one or the classic Lone Ranger and Silver, etc. In PE I'd love if pets or familiars were treated as a more meaningful CHARACTER and less of an "object" or combat tool. Where a wizard actually had a quest/storyline that revolves around finding his familiar/picking one, or for a ranger that finds his pet and tames it or such. Then seeing these "pets" throughout the game in cutscenes/story elements where they have some developer and personalities that come out.

To me I think each player class should have both strengths and weaknesses, with each having high level/top tier "amazing" abilities that really make you stand out as an exceptional character within your class once you get there that is. As far as supernatural abilities, I think those should not be restricted to mages, rather open to other people as well. I really want to play a magic melee fighter based type of character. A sort of battle mage or such.

I just don't get some people on the forums. It seems there's quite a few very vocal people who are dead set against ANY modern element in the game. I almost wish that PE developers would develop the game in a 800x600 resolution with no widescreen support, no physics, no modern graphical effects of any kind, just to give them the game that they seem to want. Meanwhile it seems for anyone that suggests anything that (outside of this game) would seem reasonable, hell even LIKED by most pc users, such as higher pov, zoomable camera, more customization for their characte,r they are labeleed as some kind of "bioware" fanboy and told to go back there. You know what, did any o fthese people even play DA:O? AT the time it felt very much like a great updated pc focused party based rpg. It had a lot of throwback to classic rpgs but also more modern elements since technology has progressed since the 90's, and most "old school rpgers" liked it and even comment on the fact. Then DAII came out and it was a mess and a terrible game compared to DA:O. I just don't get why it's bad to ENJOY classic rpgs, but understand we do not live in the 90's, we don't use 800x600 resolution screens anymore (some people might, but most do not) and technology has advanced. I see no reason you wouldn't want modern GOOD elements in the game along with the same classic "feel" in terms of style, gameplay, etc.

I liked it in Dragon's Dogma and think it would be nice to be able to share npc's. Also some of you are aware that Dragon's Dogma was single player? Just because a game has some online functionality doesn't make it "mutliplayer." Multiplayer means......there's more then one person (online or offline). Dragon's dogma was single player only. It wouldn't be required (Wasn't in DD, you could play the game offline just fine) and the dev's had pre-made companions that wandered around the world, along with other player made ones if you were connected to the net. While I'd put other things above it in terms of PE development I wouldn't se ethe harm in allowing players to share companions that they make with the adventurers hall.

While I can understand the 2d backrounds and lack of rotation because of such (having to do multiple ones), I do not get why people can be so dead set against ZOOMING? In the faq it says a zoomable camera is probable, and I hope so. I fail to see how any kind of a zoom function is the "Death" of the rpg? Some of you people seem extremely against any kind of modern evolution, we no longer use 800x600 resolutions. Not to mention have any of you played classic IE games? Playing them on a modern computer with a much higher resolution there are limitations. Yes there are widescreen mods but it doesn't really work that well. I don't get how having a zoom function and better res support in terms of art, etc would be "bad" or hurt the game in ANY way. As far as "zooming = a doll simulator" some of you seemt o be REALLY against any kind of customization. To many people that is the DEFINIING point of an rpg, being able to customize your character, both stat wise and visually (not always, but usually). When it comes to an rpg the definition that is usually found in almost any rpg, even those of different sub-genres of rpg, from action rpg, to sandbox rpg, to linear rpg, party based or solo, is the ability to take a character and "define" them through stats/skills, etc. To want to demean and make those people who like to "visually" customize their characters as thought hey have some kind of "dress up doll" fetish is childish and simply immature, you lack any kind of real argument and only serve to make yourself look like any elitist "my opinion is greater then yours" fanboy.