Stun

Or, unless they spend a few seconds reading the spell descriptions. Take the BG2 7th level Cleric spell: "Sunray". Its a spell that destroys undead. That's pretty much its only function. Well? Simple Common sense and minimal awareness of the game you're playing dictates when that spell will be useful and when it won't. So you memorize it when you feel you need to. What's the problem? Why are you speaking in such abstract "what-if" terms? Can you give me a specific example of what you're talking about? Some spells are more popular than others. So what? it happens. Happens in all non-vancian systems as well. You're not saying anything here. So....don't memorize them? That's what wands and scrolls are for. To let you cast spells you didn't memorize. And before you respond again with "but they're expensive", let me jog your memory of the BG and IWD games, where the game flooded you with so many scrolls that they had to put scroll cases in the game because people were complaining about inventory management problems. Ditto with wands. An average Playthrough of the BG games typically sees your Mage and cleric's inventory filled up almost exclusively with wands. You never needed to spend a single gold piece on them.

First of all, I've never played a game with a Vancian system where you NEEDED any spell at all. Have you? Second, half the fun of any game is discovery. You're trying to tie the 'meta gaming' argument to the vancian system, which is a bit dishonest. You don't have to *know* precisely which spells to memorize ahead of time, since in a worst case scenario if you happened to not have the absolute best spell for the situation, you can make due some other way by simply using your noggin and being creative, or take your lumps like a true adventurer and accept the fact some fights will be tougher than others due to your party's lack of preperation - - and that being 100% prepared for every single encounter eventually makes for really BORING, soulless gameplay.

That's what wands are for.

^that's a balance issue. it can easily rear its ugly head in any non-vancian system, and often does.

I like Vancian casting. All the IE games used it, after all. And it feels much less "action-y"" than the mana-based spell-spamming systems in most RPGs today, which are basically "here's the blue bar.... the stamina for mages bar, and here's your per-second blast attacks. You can call them spells if you want, but really, they're just like the weapons that all the other classes get, just more colorful. Oh and here's a cooldown mechanic for your spells to remind you of WoW and Dragon age. PS: If your mana bar gets low from spamming, just Drink some more mana potions and you can be an energy-blasting machine, er, I mean mage, all over again. <gag> No thanks. That all said, magic will be tied to our souls, apparently, which to me suggests a system more like how Sorcerers are in 2nd and 3rd edition D&D. I loved playing Sorcerers in those games.

They're sending feelers out, is what they're doing. Trying to worm their way into the only part of the industry that is currently closed off to them Feargus said "NO" to the publishers, which is good, but It makes you wonder if its only a matter of time before Publishers manage to find companies who will say yes. And when that happens, we won't even be able to turn to Kickstarter anymore without seeing Publisher taint.

This question is unnecessary. We've seen Obsidian writers do evil really well. Best in the industry, actually. I can't remember an Evil run through a game that was more satisfying than in Mask of the Betrayer

No, it's not metagaming if the devs do a good job dropping hints, which they usually do. For example, If you enter a cavern and notice that it's got a distinct snow theme, then common sense, not metagaming, dictates that you prepare your fire spells, and flaming weapons. Ditto with crypts. If you enter a crypt then it should be obvious that you're going to eventually encounter undead, thus you should ready your crushing weapons, and perhaps get your cleric to ready his various +extra damage to undead spells. And this of course assumes total exploration randomness. More often than not, that isn't the type of situation you typically find yoruself in. Instead, you're told about the nature of your task from NPCs. Or you read about a specific dungeon ahead of time.

How does making certain weapons 100% non-viable against certain foes give you MORE options? Eh? The fact that in some specific instances, some specific weapons will be useless doesn't give you more options or less options. I have never played a CRPG where you build your character around a specific weapon. Instead, you build your character around a specific weapon type. That being the case, I'll answer the question now. It gives you more options because if you're specializing in longswords (for example) and you enter a werewolf den and you don't have a silver longsword, the Developers will usually let you find a silver longsword in that dungeon, thus allowing you to continue being effective with the build you created, instead of limiting your options and forcing you to specialize in Blunt weapons because the only silver in the game is a silver mace. A subject change, is it? Sure, Tactical gameplay certainly isn't limited to just enemy resistances. (who claimed it was? lol) But to argue that every weapon should be able to work on every enemy so that Psychoblonde doesn't have to think, plan and prepare....well, that's precisely the sort of dumbing down that is infesting the industry today, and why I found myself eagerly donating to Project Eternity in the hopes that Obsidian will make us a game that isn't DUMBED DOWN.

Of course not. Which is why just about every cRPG ever made generally makes sure that if you enter a werewolf den withoout a silver weapon, you'll quickly find one in that dungeon just waiting for you to loot it and equip it in time for your first werewolf encounter. And, here's the thing--how is this an argument in favor of having this mechanic at all? Because it gives the player options. Or if you prefer, it lets the player roleplay the build he/she created - its the Developers' way of insuring that you can take any build and be viable with it without them having to dumb down their game and remove enemy resistances (or whatever you're proposing in your op.)

Wait. it's not up to you to decide how durable or frail an animated skeleton is. There's a level of open endedness in fantasy, and who's to say that all animated skeletons are the same? Corpses can be raised without all their bones in perfect fighting condition. I'd argue that a level 1 skeleton doesn't need to have its femur (or any of its bones) shattered in order to be 'killed' anyway. Any forceful strike should be enough to knock it down, disconnecting its bones and returning it to an inert state. On the other hand, a perfectly crafted animated skeleton raised by a competant Necromancer can present something much more solid, even armored. And the swift removal of its head with a scythe or warhammer wouldn't necessarily "kill" it at all. Short version: this aspect of the discussion is pointless. You don't. You don't kill undead. You destroy undead. The mechanics are supposed to be different. The fact that they usually aren't in crpgs is, again, a commentary about erroneous implementation of Undead, not the viability of certain weapons.

Of course not. Which is why just about every cRPG ever made generally makes sure that if you enter a werewolf den withoout a silver weapon, you'll quickly find one in that dungeon just waiting for you to loot it and equip it in time for your first werewolf encounter. This has been pointed out to you a dozen times on this thread. You're arguing against something that doesn't friggin happen On a side note, Black Isle learned the hard way that you don't shaft players by not giving them the tools they need, when they need them. They took heat for making Arrow and bullet loot so rare in their massive dungeons. So what happened? They overcompensated in the sequel. In Icewind dale 2, just about every single enemy dropped whole quivers of arrows, bullets, darts and bolts. And that's aside from the multiple instances of Everlast Arrows, returning Darts, and slings that didn't need bullets that you found in chapter 1.

LOL another straw man. Sheesh. The argument you're making here speaks of the erroneous implementation of Dragons in crpgs, not of the viability of Daggers for effective combat.

I beat Mellisan (all 4 of the battles with her) without using any weapons or spells at all. In fact, aside from the first battle, I didn't even engage in combat.

You're grotesquely exagerating. And doing so serves no purpose beyond "hey, it feels good to vent!" Consequently, your poll is not worth taking seriously. Lets look at the Infinity engine games, (oh, and lets forget the fact that in each and every one of them, you could have a party of 6 people, and therefore, use them to cover all the bases here.) It was never that bad. Even if you didn't use a party. In Icewind dale, a basic +3 weapon of any type worked on EVERYTHING. At the very worst, it would be less effective against some creatures than it is on others. But that just means that the system was dynamic and allowed you to work within it to optimize the damage you do. (common sense dictates that if you're a warrior and want to quickly destroy that Frost Salamander, then you should use a flaming weapon, instead of, say, your axe of frost +3. But again, that doesn't mean you had to. You can still kill that frost salamander with your frost axe + 3. It would just take a little longer because you chose to approach that fight without employing even an iota of strategy. (ie. Know thy enemy.) In BG2, you had Clay golems, which were 100% Magic Resistant and comepletely immune to slashing weapons. So what? Are you going to argue that they made the game unecessarily cumbersome? Did you need to carry around 15 different weapons? Were you unable to advance past chapter 2 because you encountered a Clay golem and didn't have a way to kill it? No, No, and lol No. Clay Golems simply represented a unique (read: uncommon) situation that the player had to overcome. And of course, this is BG2 we're talking about here. The game that loads you with piles and piles of everything you can ever need to get past every single situation in the game with ease. I shudder to think of the alternative.... a game where all enemies are essentually the same from a defensive standpoint and you don't ever need special tools to defeat them <gag> No thank you. I believe there's a term for what you're asking for: Dumbing down.

Well, "its a deal breaker" implies that it's a developer decision that will cause you not to buy the game. (what other "deal" could you be talking about?) That's an ultimatum if I ever heard one. Me, I voted no on this poll. But it's certainly not something that factors into my decision to get the game. In the end, I'll just play the game and not use any guns. Problem solved.

You heard it here first. Developer confirmation: Gnomes are in!

Sure, we'll be given the option to place a stick of deodorant in our inventories for quick use... right next to our stack of wolf pelts, our vials of troll blood, our containers of ghoul essence, and of course, that Bandit chief's head we're hauling back to town for the bounty reward. lol

Who on this forum ever claimed it's the most important part of the genre? It's not. But unlike the other things on your list, A player home is completely consistant with the "old school" theme that the Devs have promised for this game. So I don't understand why it's included in your list of gripes. TOEE had a player house. BG2 had a player house. Morrowind had a player house.

Yes. IMO, there's a really fine line between fun and pointless reality sim play. Having to eat and drink can be fun, but it still walks that line and sometimes crosses it. People who eat and drink also have to stop and relieve themselves on occasion too. But thankfully, we don't see many games that require you to go to the bathroom 3 or 4 times a day, because that would be retarded. And not fun at all. Agreed. If I were to design such a system I would make it so that eating and drinking periodically throughout the day gives you bonusses. And if you go 8 hours or so without eating/drinking then those bonusses simply go away. But that would be the extent of it. Taking it a step further and actually Penalizing players simply because they didn't stop and look at the clock and take their rations on time, seems like an unnecessarily cumbersome gameplay mechanic. I don't know. I think the old IE games did it fine. Sleep wasn't "forced" on you, but you did eventually get that annoying fatigue icon on your portrait and you did suffer a penalty to your skills if you didn't eventually rest. I often times just ignored it and pressed on, since it was really minor (something like -1 to your attacks and saves. big deal)

Just curious as to how much of the lore has already been written for this game, if you already have a map with all these names and locations.

Meh, as long as they don't go all used car salesman on us, I'm fine with the occasional in-game incentive. The old games that Project Eternity is meant to immulate did this kind of stuff all the time. BG2's collector's addition added 2 exclusive merchants who both had entire inventories filled with exclusive items.

Since 1999, I've been begging Bioware, Bethesda, Black Isle, Obsidian and Troika to implement an addiction/Withdrawal symptom system for people who abuse consumables.

While I absolutely loathe the modern system of "fight's over. poof! here's all your health back!", I wouldn't want a game to do away with health regen completely. The old IE games certainly didn't. PS:T had health regen, as did BG1, BG2 and IWD (remember, according to AD&D second edition, regeneration is tied to your constitution score, and it begins at 20.) As for the resting mechanics, I'm not sure what a good solution would be. The system implemented in the Icewind Dales and the BG games was....uninspired, But it wasn't all bad. You could rest when you absolutely needed to. But What I disliked most about it was that even if you Cleared a zone of all foes, you could still have your rest interrupted by a pack of enemies that seemingly spawned from out of nowhere. This should be done away with, first and foremost. IMO the best resting system I've seen was in Mask of the Betrayer. It was still riddled with flaws but it was better than the others. A set up camp option was given, and the chance of wandering enemies to interrupt your rest varied according to the hostility level of the area you were in. For Project Eternity, Obsidian could, perhaps, begin with this system and work on enhancing it/enriching it. Maybe create a guard duty mechanic and have its success be based on the intimidation skills of the guard, or even implement the ability to lay deadly runes/traps outside of the camp area to deter or kill wandering enemies who try to interrupt your rest. Or hell, how about giving mages the ability to cast some form of a Temporal Stasis spell to make the camp area impervious to intrusion. Oh and on a related note, why is it an unwritten rule that resting at an inn is a guaranteed safe rest? Why can't thieves or assassins break into your hotel room every once in a while for flavor? Hmm?

The Flavor. Which encompasses much of what you cited. (the lingo, the setting, the artwork, the musical score) PS:T was the ultimate case study in STYLE. Aside from that, I'd be very *very* interested in seeing if Project Eternity emulates PS:T's wonderfully insane level of focus on Morality. Every single choice in PS:T was Morality based. I suppose it had to be that way since we were otherwise extremely limited in the choice department (Game locked you into playing a set protagonist with a set backstory and a set path to the end), but still, it went above and beyond where it needed to go to establish itself as the standard for Crpgs.