Stun

It bothers me even knowing that the exits are there in the same way that having weightless items would bother me, Then you have a problem with believable worlds. Tell it like it is. Again, any massive, man-made structure is going to have multiple doors and exits. Not for the intruder (the player), but for the people who live there. If it doesn't then the level designers suck ass.

Certainly. However, allowing you to leave a dungeon when you're halfway through does not fit the definition of "too much freedom.". I think you're kinda getting a bit over zealous with your argument here.

When people end up using it in excess, yes. When people end up using it in excess, then that would be a flaw in peoples game play... not a flaw in the game's design.

Personally, I'm not even ready to concede the original premise that exits are there to make the dungeon easier. In the case of a 14 level mega dungeon, They'd be there to keep gameplay from becoming too linear. I love spending a few hours dungeon crawling. But I sure as hell don't want to feel like the game is forcing me to dungeon crawl for 20 friggin hours, with no choice to do anything else once I begin. Because THAT would be bad design.

Really? You're unable to grasp how making a game too easy and accessible is bad design? Well, I'm able to grasp a good straw man when someone tries to burn one in my face. lol Do we need to get out a dictionary and cite you the definition of OPTIONS? If a game gives you the option to make something easy (such as putting an exit on level 2 of a 14 level dungeon so you can leave if you want), and you decide to not use that option. Has your game become easier? Conversely, if you decide to use that option, is it the game's fault? Or is it your own damn fault? Hell, lets take your philosophy to the next level. Most RPGs let you save your game. Is that bad design too? After all, It makes things easy. if you die, you can simply reload from where you last saved and continue on, instead of having to start the whole game over. perhaps they should scrap that option, so that people like you can have your "HARD" in all it's true glory. Right?

I doubt anyone here is trying to change your opinion, so much as simply Deconstucting/rebutting your argument. And the latter is being done here in spades. Multiple dungeon exits on multiple levels are not even an invention of video games. Just about all the classic dungeon-based D&D modules from Pen and Paper had them. They had to. Both the story and the game's mechanics depended on it. Logic and believablity also depends on it. If a structure/complex is man-made, then it's going to have exits to the surface on most levels. Not to make things easy on the player, but for the convenience/survivability of that dungeon's inhabatants.... and to explain why those inhabitants are a threat that needs to be dealt with.

I'm pretty sure you know what the obvious question this begs. How is it bad design? If older games are irrelevant, then why did you post that comic strip link who's very point was to compare today's games with games from the 90s?

Or... make those exits part of the dungeon's challenge itself. You're 5 levels down. Wanna leave? Sure, here's an exit to the surface..... Guarded by a (insert elite/boss-level enemy.... or puzzle... or nasty trap) Get past this challenge, and you've earned the right to see the Sun again.

Nope. There's never a time when More Options are a bad thing. And You can call it "hand holding", and a product of the "modern era", or whatever, but dungeon exits at every level have existed in RPGs since like, forever. BG2's watcher's keep had them. Temple of Elemental evil, not only had exits on just about every level, but it also gave mages the Teleport Spell, so that they, and their entire party, could instantly exit the dungeon from anywhere in it.

They should probably not waste time with a 3.6 million stretch goal since we'll probably be past it by the time Adam and Josh wake up this morning. lol They should set their sites at one final stretch goal... at 4 million and IMO it should be quest based. It'd be pretty cool to get major questlines for each one of the avaliable character classes.

It's not arbitrary. It's the opposite of arbitrary. It represents the physical size of a player's backpack/knapsack/suitcase/pockets. A list system with no space limit isn't even an inventory. It's an index, or a table of contents, or some other soulless, unrealistic concept.

Alright. lets try this again. 1) Baldurs Gate didn't use a grid system so I'm not quite sure where the slot tetris complaint comes from. Definitely not from Baldur's Gate. 2) You don't want space limits on inventories. Apparenty it's totally believable to have a game where you're controlling 6 party members, and each one of them has unlimited inventory space. 3) You do want weight limits. I'm ok with this, until we take class balance into consideration. In your system, since there's no such thing as inventory space, a mage will be able to carry an unlimited supply of their class's arsenal: scrolls and wands (since they typically don't weigh anything). On the other hand, Fighters get the short stick. Swords and shields are heavy, and when the only inventory restriction is weight, then that's exactly what you're getting: One class that will never have to concern themselves with inventory limits, vs. another class that will always have to.

I wasn't even aware that we were discussing the IE inventory systems. In your OP you specifically complained about Inventory tetris..... which would be the grid system. The IE games don't use an inventory grid.

Which is why Fallout New Vegas was smart enough to separate things by categories. So does skyrim. And compartmentalizing doesn't fix the problem. It makes it worse. Instead of scrolling up and down to find your item, you have to scroll up and down to find the item's category, then click on the category, then scroll up and down to find the item. Screw that. I'd rather play inventory tetris than duey decimal system librarian.

I found it to be the worst design feature of the entire game. The problem with list inventories is that they get.... long. So long that you have to scroll up and down endlessly to find what you need. Rule of thumb: if you find yourself wishing there was a search feature for your friggin inventory, then they did it wrong.

Obviously carry weight should depend on a character's strength. But why should carry space depend on it too? Aside from the redundancy, are we supposed to assume that knapsacks/pockets/handbags come in different sizes according to your strength score?

You could have the sprite next to the item name, and as something you can see when you click the item within the inventory. Cause I agree, those are very nice looking. I just don't think they're nice enough to be the reason you have an inventory slot. Yeah. Skyrim does that.

How about they do both: impliment carry weight and carry space? This is a party based game after all. Not implementing carry space means the inventory ends up being list based. I can think of nothing worse. But Lets get real here. You're on record defining "work" as having to hover your cursor over the clock to see the time. You might as well just come out and say what you really mean: You want the game to play itself while you cross your arms and watch

Aaah yes. I knew we were going to get to this point. Slotless inventory. In other words, lets take the Infinity engine's already non-believable inventory system and make it even less believable by not even bothering to implement physical space. Makes sense. Oh, and while we're at it, lets play nice and not call it what it is: DUMBING DOWN

Extra inventory space is an irritant? The alternative is to do away with inventory all together. Is that what you want? If so, Mass Effect is That way -----> PS: and they aren't "workarounds". They're D&D based magic items that predate the IE games by about 20 years.

^Thing is, as the IE games themselves evolved, Inventory management was no longer such an issue. BG1 and IWD were both major inventory management headaches for new players, but their sequels, for example, fixed that problem with gem bags, potion and scroll cases, ammo belts, and bags of holding. If after all of that, you still had inventory management problems, then it wasn't the game's fault. You mean, to see the time. Because the IE games aren't time-focused games and thus didn't need dedicated space of their own in the UI? That's my guess. That they even had a clock was for flavor purposes, and nothing more. You literally did not need to ever know the time in any of the IE games. PS: those clocks in the IE games were pause buttons. But hey, if hovering your cursor over the clock is such a "waste of time", you could move the tool-tip delay slider all the way down in your game settings, and thus save yourself 100% of your 'wasted" time. Also If I'm not mistaken, hitting the Tab button in BG2 also brings up the time

Eh? As long as a game has a day/night cycle, with lighting effects that accurately project "dawn", "dusk", "sunset" etc. you really don't need a digital clock in the game at all, do you? That being the case, I think it's cool that the IE games allowed you access to such specific info if you wanted it.... which means hovering your cursor over the button. But I for one, would not wish for the UI to be cluttered with such info by default.

Came back late. Missed the last few hours of the stream. How far did he get?

I wonder why they chose IWD2. Depending on how long this livestream lasts, I don't see him getting too far past the character creation process. lol It takes an hour to create a whole party in IWD2. So if this thing last 2 hours, we'll be watching adam create a part of 6, then maybe fight off some goblins in the Targos docks. And that's all. Edit: Wait a minute. Just read this again: To Kuldahar? This thing could go on for hours and hours.

You know, it's not that hard to create a bunch of facebook accounts then click the like button for PE with them. When I get home tonight, if we're not yet at 20K, I'll get us there.