Baudolino05

Stealth killing is great, but it makes sense only in a game with REAL stealth mechanics. Clicking on an icon and then rolling around like Harry Potter with the Invisibility cloak doesn't match my idea of stealth.

Of course I totally agree with Tuco. We argued about armor and weapon design several times and any time we came to the same conclusion: nothing shipped on pc (or console) in the last decade beats The Witcher 2. The guy who designed equipment and clothes for that game is a damn genius. He knows the dominant fashion and the military technology of Late Middle-Ages (at least in Eastern Europe), but he also knows how to arrange them in a personal way.

You can have an almost peaceful playthrough in Planescape, but pretty much all the resources spent on the dialogue/writing went at the expense of solid combat mechanics in that game. I've never played Darklands, but it's not really an IE-like game, so it's not an apt. comparison. Darklands was the first cRPG with a solid RTwP combat, it also inspired the world-map gameply of Storm of Zehir and - judging by a couple of posts I've read in this forum - it's among the favorite games of J. Sawyer; so it IS an apt. comparison . Anyway, this is not the point. The point is that you can easily have a party-based RPG without tons of mandatory battles. Actually, if you have a good ruleset, companions improve quest solving.

In glad the majority of people don't want a game focused on combat. To make it clear, I'm not against good tactical battles. Actually I'm a big fan of turn based games like X-Com or Jugged Alliance, but when combats become predominant in a RPG, I feel like the game is losing its focus, or at least what is supposed to be its focus: roleplay. If I want bunches of battles I can play a tactical game, right?

You can have an (almost) peaceful playthrough with both Darklands and Planescape....

To me quest desing is the most important feature in a cRPG, like level design in a platform game or puzzle design in a puzzle/adventure game. The way quests work (not the way they are written, which is another thing) essentially decides the way you play the game. So, now: I don't think there is a best solution (execution counts way more than idea in this area), but I'm 100% sure there is a solution more faithfull than any other to p&p RPGs, and is the 4th...

Hard coiche, but I have a clear head about this topic....

You don't need over-complicated or over-realistic solution to the rest problem. You just need a system that brings trade-off decisions and resource managment in to the game. I quote myself from another topic:

I've always been pretty sure that someone inside Obsidian was fond of Darklands. And having the Microprose masterpiece perpetually installed in my hard drive, I totally agree ...

Try Jagged Alliace 2 (or X-Com) and then try to return to Fallout: Tactics if you can ...

Interesting, but don't forget the time factor: if arranging a good strategy takes too much time, RTwP loses its only advantage over turns. Jagged Alliance: Back in Action, for instance, has a movie-maker-like timeline that allows you to set actions. It's a very accurate system, but also slow, VERY slow... I totally agree. The moving camera is the most useless feature ever added to the RPG genre .

I can't disagree more. And if I want to play a full diplomatic character? A skilled thief that dislikes violence? A fine tactician that never fights in person? The problem is not being forced to choose between combat and non combat ablities. The problem is being forced to fight... I agree, I know some games have tried to do it with varying degrees of success but I think when I wrote that I was thinking more on the lines of BG2 where you pretty much have to fight, a lot. Perhaps in my example you could put your point into 1 combat skill, 1 non-combat or 0 combat and 2 non-combat? Spoiler Alerts for Witcher 2 below: I found it interesting in Witcher 2 at the end I simply had a conversation with Letho the main antagonist, could have fought him but decided I just didn't want to kill him. There were many choices like that in the game and they were all usually well done. I hope PE is less combat oriented than BG, but, for a "BG-IWD like game you're probably right: support and combat skills should be separated like in D&D 3.x. Essentially because they aren't equally important...

I can't disagree more. And if I want to play a full diplomatic character? A skilled thief that dislikes violence? A fine tactician that never fights in person? The problem is not being forced to choose between combat and non combat ablities. The problem is being forced to fight...

Maybe this topic is redundant or maybe is premature, but I really need to ask to Josh (or to anyone that want to answer): what kind of quest design can we expect from Project Eternity? I mean, this's gonna be a game primarily focused on combat, "puzzle-solving", exploration, investigation or what? You mentioned both Icewind Dale and Torment as fonts of inspiration, but despite the common engine and ruleset they are almost complementary games in this area. So, would you add any additional info to what we already know?

You can solo-play BG and IWD just because aD&D is a awfully umbalanced ruleset, where having 3 more levels is almost better than having 3 more companions. I hope PE doesn't follow the same road... Fallout and Arcanum belong to a different kind of RPG. They are designed for being played with a single character. Companions are a non essential part of their gameplay. PE is a party-based RPG, instead.

Ok, good question and good answers. Another usefull feature could be an option for synchronizing actions. I.E: do I want to move my melee fighter in a safe spot before my mage casts an AoE spell? Well, I keep pushed - let's say - shift, then I select the target for my warrior, the spell and target for the mage and finally I release shift. When I unpause the game both my characters will act with perfect coordination. How does it sound? Anyway, controls and U.I. improvements apart, I think the most important feature for a RTwP game is a well tuned ruleset. I mean, if you have tons of active skills with ridiculous cooldown periods, combat will be always a mess. No doubt about that. I.E games and Darklands work fine because their warriors almost don't need management; DA:O combat, instead, is a bedlam of active skills without hope for redemption....

I like that ) or you could only see the additional answer if you have particular skill, but chance of success should be based on stat-skill level and *luck*. I would love to see person with 18-20 Intelligence, Maxed out speech skill ... to fail * persuasion attempt (dialog line)* from time to time. In my ideal dialogue system using a skill (or a stat) with an high score doesn't assure you a positive result. I.E.: if you use soft manners with a character that can be persuaded only through brute force, you fail, even if you have 100/100 in diplomacy. So, paradoxically, if you lack the diplomacy option in a case like this you are advantaged. This is why having a dumb line with a low score instead of no line at all is important. PS: a passive skill that gives you hints about the personality of the character you are speaking with would complete the system.

Of course I pretend descriptions during dialogues, but I don't want any kind of skill tag, at least before I select my line. Tags help players to take the "right" decision during dialogues, and I don't want obviously right decisions in this game. "Winning" a dialogue should be a challenge not a mechanical sequence of clicks.... I would love a system where: -An high skill/stat score = a smart line (without tag) - A low sill/stat score = a silly line (again without tag)

For me a good rest/healing system is not necessarly about realism; it's about trade-off decisions. Let me give you two different but equally good samples... 1- In Ultima Underworld you had limited inventory room, no mana/healt regeneration and a (once) typical starvation system. To heal the Avatar you could use healing potions (extremely rare), different healing spells (mana consuming) or try to sleep. The most convenient of the 3 opitions (sleeping) consumed only time, but any x hours the Avatar bacame hungry and due to the limited inventory he never had too much food. 2- In Frayed Knights, instead, your party members consume energy with almost any combat action, even with the simplest physical attack. You are allowed to sleep almost everywhere, and sleeping, of course, refills your energy pool, but still any x hours your TOTAL amount of energy decreases, and you can restore the pool to the original level only with a safe bed nap or a (relatively) rare potion. In short: I don't care how realistic will be the healt system in Project Eternity. I just want an interesting system like the two I mentioned above...

You nailed a good point here. Torment, in my opinion, still have the best dialogue system in the RPG genre (tons of options and checks, zero tags that help players to make the right choice), perfectly integrated with its magnificent quest design. If PE was similar in this area, I could stand even to a terrible combat system.

same here. turned based makes sense for handhelds because of reduced cpu power, but since this will be a pc exclusive there is no reason to not go real time I give you one reason: having a deep tactical combat like in X-Com, Jugged Alliance and Tactics Ogre (sacrilege, a console game !!!!) baldurs gate and icewind dale also had good tactical combat while being real time with the added benefit of being more immersive. it depends more on the encounter design than what system you use Not as deep as the games I mentioned (tactically speaking) . And, belive me, if you know all the balancing issues of AD&D (as I knew when I bought Baldur's Gate, having played AD&D for years), you can win 9 out 10 encountes using the same tactic. Slightly different story for IWD... however this game will not be AD&D so that point is moot obsidian have all the freedom to create their own system that is tailor made for RTWP and that offers the same or more depth than a turned based one I hope so, but still I can't find a good reason for preferring RTwP to TB in RPGs.. I would appreciate if one of the developers came here to explain his reasons...

same here. turned based makes sense for handhelds because of reduced cpu power, but since this will be a pc exclusive there is no reason to not go real time I give you one reason: having a deep tactical combat like in X-Com, Jugged Alliance and Tactics Ogre (sacrilege, a console game !!!!) So is X-com....(Console game) Only the last episode, that - according to what I saw - is great... And Disgaea, and Fire Emblem, etc...

same here. turned based makes sense for handhelds because of reduced cpu power, but since this will be a pc exclusive there is no reason to not go real time I give you one reason: having a deep tactical combat like in X-Com, Jugged Alliance and Tactics Ogre (sacrilege, a console game !!!!) baldurs gate and icewind dale also had good tactical combat while being real time with the added benefit of being more immersive. it depends more on the encounter design than what system you use Not as deep as the games I mentioned (tactically speaking) . And, belive me, if you know all the balancing issues of AD&D (as I knew when I bought Baldur's Gate, having played AD&D for years), you can win 9 out 10 encountes using the same tactic. Slightly different story for IWD...

same here. turned based makes sense for handhelds because of reduced cpu power, but since this will be a pc exclusive there is no reason to not go real time I give you one reason: having a deep tactical combat like in X-Com, Jugged Alliance and Tactics Ogre (sacrilege, a console game !!!!)

Surely good real time tactical games (with or without pause) exist: Myth, Dawn of War 2, Total War (during battles) et similia, and hopefully Project Eternity will be one of them, but the point nailed down by Catmorbid remains true: if you have a party of 4/6 characters with a large number of abilities, spells and active skills, you need a lot of pauses to handle with them; so what's the point of having a real time with pause system? You don't gain the fluidity of a full real time system anyway, and a turn based system (with an high killing ratio for both party members and mobs) can assure you a faster pace and an unmatchable control over the action. To be honest, I can't find a single reason to prefer RTwP in RPGs (but still, I never unistalled Darllands from my HDD in the last 10 years ). Is it just a matter of presentation? Does TBC "feel" too slow? The new X-com doesn't...