Karkarov

Ok so this thread is a bit meta gamey cause it assumes all things will be available via companions and or we don't know who all the companions are at this point. Be that as it may lets assume this is icewind dale time and I have to make my own party from scratch. 1: MC Male Human Fighter - Focused on offensive combat. Use a two handed sword. This is always my main character concept in these games. Attacks largest melee threat first. 2: Male Aumaua Paladin - Sword and Board, mostly tank with some support and healing skills. Good ol' trusty companion if there ever was, primary tank. 3: Female Human Ranger - Long ranged combat with bow, possibly some control skills but mostly offense. Party trap checker/lock picker, if possible. Targets casters first. 4: Female Elven Priest - Heavy Armor, may see some melee, but primary party healer and buffs mostly. In combat is focused on support of the melee. 5: Female Elven Wizard - Heh... Aoe focus, 100% about damage with some debuffing for specific tough enemy situations. Primary goal is killing all the weaker mobs fast. 6: Male Godlike Cipher - I am hoping they turn out to be a mix of damage and buffing. Primary role will be neutralizing enemy casters alongside the ranger and softening enemies. Depending on how Ciphers turn out #6 may become a Male Human Druid and the Ranger gets turned into a godlike. Gotta have at least one ya know?

Wow, someone knows absolutely nothing about game design. I don't care what the exp model is, if the game is built correctly the devs WILL be able to predict your level and general party "strength" at any given point in it. It is in fact REQUiRED they be able to do this to make a balanced fun game. Even most "grind games" eventually simply give you little to no exp for your grinding and force you to move on with the story where, low and behold, you are really only slightly stronger than someone who just did the quests was. In the end your grinding availed you basically nothing. In games where you are required to grind the encounters became too hard too fast and forced the player to repeat content to compensate. That isn't a exp model, that is incompetent and lazy game design based around the idea of padding the players playtime to keep them in game. Only games that basically suck need to do this, or ones where the devs are just incapable of doing their job effectively. Looking at Diablo and Blizzard here. Or well a game made by an Asian company, Asians seem to think grinding is fun for some reason. You don't happen to be Asian do you? I think he believes Obsidian is making this game on RPG Maker.

The problem is you consider those races "godlike" they aren't. Tieflings are not descended from gods, they are descended from demons. Aasimar are not descended from gods, they are descended from what I will call "angels" just to keep it simple. They are officially referred to as "planetouched" in many D&D reference books for a reason. Reading the explanation from the Update also makes no sense because "Godlike" is clearly the wrong term. "God Touched" maybe a little more accurate. As the post says they are children that were marked by a god in some way when born. So obviously they are human or whatever else for the most part.

Well the only issue is that general plotline, though cliche, done correctly can actually be very compelling. In fact when done right you won't even notice it is actually a good vs evil story.

GoG get's their own updates and notifies you when one is available for a game you own. You still have to go to GoG, access your games library, then download it yourself. If you run the GoG installer (I don't) you might be able to get an auto install option there. In all honesty it isn't very inconvenient and is pretty easy even when you do it manually.

This is actually a pretty standard feature in alot of games (especially RPGs) even today. Maybe not a "strongest enemy killed" or "what percentage of kills came from this dude" but plenty of them show how long you have played, money earned, spent, how many enemies killed, how many killed of "insert mob type" here, how many secret things you found, blah blah. If they have time and it isn't something too tough to work into Unity (doubt it will be) I don't see a reason not to have something like this.

Let's get the ip established and make a good first game to start aye? We can worry about making a grindy game with more than likely subpar gameplay after the hopeful financial success of the first release. Example of how not to go about making an MMO - 38 Studios Kingdom of Aumalur.

Kind of at a loss as to what Berserk and Vagabond have to do with crafting. Sure Guts maintains his gear, but you don't need blacksmithing training to do that. Every marine can assemble and disassemble their rifle but they aren't gunsmiths. Salvaging items to use as upgrades is fine but I would sort of rather repair be left out entirely. It always feels tedious and mundane. I think HellFell got it right with his first post.

Well if they do player age it needs to be complete player choice. That said... It would be rather silly to be a new starting adventurer when you are 40 something or older as a human. How many 40 something firemen you know who just started on the job a month ago? Know any 40 something beat cops who just went through the academy in the last year? When was the last time you met a 40+ year old who had just joined the military? I am willing to bet the answers are zero, no, and never. I am not saying everyone needs to be 18-21, but there is a reason most video games that involve the "leveling" concept start you out as a younger person. Because it makes sense. Also game rules don't allow you to play the "wise old man with a bad situation" your years and years of working off jobs equate to jack crap because skill points, stats, feats, spells, all that stuff is based on level, not age (save stats which are modified by it sometimes). What I am saying is you could RP a 40 something year old who due to bad times had to become a rogue in 2nd ed D&D, but you would still be level 1 and regardless of your RP being "I spent my life previously as a cook" you still won't have the skill points to be any better at cooking than a level 1 20 year old who picked it up from mom.

Are you sure you played the same two games you name cause the Wizardry 8 starting dungeon was pretty meh on all levels and the BG2 one got you some nice items to start you off, introduced the antagonist, and formed a solid foundation for the games plot. Nah not really, they are just bad players. My fighter in BG2 was more than capable of killing a mage in a single attack round, the minute his defenses failed the mage was a dead man walking. I think in the climactic encounter at the end game Irenicus lasted .... 3 maybe 4 rounds. That is only cause all his immunity crap got pre cast then recast once with time stop.

By that logic we should put some penalties on magical swords, because if we don't then no one would want to use normal swords... Seriously. Plate is the best armor one can have. Period. It should be the best armor in the game BY FAR. Period. However, that doesn't mean a player will ever be able to equip a whole party with it. Plate armor has to be custom-fitted and is EXPENSIVE AS HELL. Another good thing the Dark Eye RPG system does is that wearing metal armor interferes with spellcasting because it disrupts arcane energies or some such. End result your mage can wear armor, just not "metal" armor. There is nothing wrong with Full Plate being the best armor, so long as there is a reason for using something else. Maybe your master archer can't use it because it restricts his vision or finger movement too much? Maybe your paladin has taken a vow to only use armor embossed with his orders crest and blessed by some ritual and that bad ass full plate +5 you just looted doesn't have either so he won't use it? I don't see a Thief picking locks or disarming a trap while wearing plate gloves either for that matter.

My definition of fun doesn't include spending 30+ minutes grinding down an opponent with a bazillion hit points for the 3rd time because it's killed my protagonist twice before. Sometimes I do want to throw a Power Word: Kill at an opponent and other times I'll want to try the assassination. Of course, the latter is predicated upon having a skilled assassin in my party. Some parties might not tolerate such an NPC in their midst. Bottom line, I want the option to use Harm (with a save), Power Word: Kill (with a save), assassination (with a save), and I also want you to be able to sit there for half the night chipping away at Mr. Mega Hitpoints if that's your desire. I'd rather go to bed on time, thanks. What game are you playing again? Even WoW doesn't take 30 minutes to kill a raid boss these days, I probably only took about 3 to kill Irenicus in BG2. I really have no idea what you are talking about. Creating a boss with a million HP that takes multiple deaths and respawns sounds like an MMO or the crap of the month Diablo 3, not any game Obsidian ever made. That type of encounter is even less desirable than instant death magic as far as I am concerned. Also there is one huge problem with these same weak arguments. This isn't D&D 2nd Edition. The most recent Edition of D&D by the way (4th) has a big complaint in that it is actually almost impossible to die. So no, even the much vaunted holy grail D&D doesn't do this save or die crap anymore.

True but every one of those games is based on D&D second edition where "builds" were a practically non existent thing. The only difference between Fighter A and Fighter B from a mechanics standpoint in 2nd Ed is what class kits they had (if any), secondary skills (minor at best), and what weapon they chose to specialize in. This game is going to be a touch more modern than that I hope. More like Dragon Age 1 where a Fighter might be a unkillable tank with a tower shield and 1 hand axe that can stun enemies, or a two hand killing machine that can turn etheral and cut through plate armor like it was butter.

If it has a pause feature they can make it as real time as they want, I can still turn it into turned based by just pausing a lot. In other words... don't really care.

Respecs of any kind is a resounding no. This is not a multiplayer game when you might need a different set up cause today you are pvp'ing instead of tanking. You have a full on party of dudes at your disposal, you should have all the bases covered. If the game is well made there will also be no such thing as a "useless" spec, maybe a sub optimal one, but not downright worthless. Even if there is such a spec I imagine you would probably have to go out of your way to achieve it by choice, not by making a couple build mistakes. Everyone knows 18 strength and 10 intelligence isn't good for a mage in D&D.

Would it be equally poor gameplay if one of your party members (rogue/assassin) snuck up behind an annoyingly difficult to overcome opponent and put a poisoned blade into his heart and thus assassinated the problematic opponent? No, because it doesn't require me to waste 5 minutes of my life and reloading a save. I wonder if you remember that this is a "game" it is supposed to be "fun". That said it is very easy for Obsidian to make instant death attacks simply not exist. Also it is easy to lay out an encounter to make it basically impossible for the "big bad" to be surprised by your assassin. Also your example isn't RNG read (Random Number Generator) I had to sneak my assassin up there, give him the skills to make this attack/sneak effectively, give him the poison to do it (maybe I even had to craft it), and then the enemy still gets a save and may potentially live through the attack leaving my assassin with his pants down. Power Word Kill - Save or die. No planning, no strategy, no crafted poison, no well timed cautious sneaking, just pure save or die. No thanks. Meanwhile the mage casts it from 30 yards away and is in no immediate danger when he does it. I make my save, he is fine, he just tries again next round or goes to a different spell.

It also won't have the user base to be worth the effort. If you are going to do this type of port it needs to be for tablets which is already a pretty sketchy idea, not Ouya.

No. If any one stat is going to be able to give you a "dialog" option then they all need to do it. Planescape did a few things I really REALLY don't like. The top offender was forcing everyone to play with mage priest stats if they wanted to experience the whole game. It basically invalidated almost every class in the game. The smarter way to do it would be to base it on skill score. Such as Drakensang: The River of Time, which in my opinion is the best iteration of the "infinity engine" style game. You had many straight speech skills like Seduce, Haggle, Fast Talk (bluff in other words), and others like Streetwise, Survival, Human Intuition, even blacksmithing might get used for a speech check here or there. Best thing, the game always based the check off of the person in your team with the highest value in those skills. So even if you the main character couldn't fast talk your way past a paper bag that sly thief in your party could and he would step up to do it for you. Other than Alpha Protocol I don't think a single Obsidian made game has as good a conversation system.

Wrong. Just because you are super scary and ultra mean looking doesn't mean you are a good liar. You are lying when you tell them you will attack or else, because you don't actually intend to. So even though you may legitimately be terrifying they may realize under that you are actually a softy and say "Uhhh .... come on now... you wouldn't really kill me over a kitten would you?!". Insert Captain Shakespeare from Stardust. Very intimidating appearance and behavior, but his primary skill was theatrics and bluffing. In a fight he would go down like a house of cards no matter how tough he "looked". In the end maybe intimidate should just be renamed "Threaten".

Long story short. No. Save or die spells are RNG at their worst and don't belong in games that have been properly balanced and tested. BG2 I fail a save an instant die? I get pissed cause I lost 5 minutes of my life and reload a save. That isn't good gameplay.

Great video. I personally think the best scene starts at 34 minutes where the curator of the Wallace collection shows off what he can do in a suit of real full plate made specifically to fit him. Like it would have been done when people actually used this armor for real. It makes many very stupid notions like "full plate should have a dex penalty" look downright childish.

Honestly from a pure mechanics perspective Temple of Elemental Evil is the clear winner. Hence I voted for it. Either way every game on the list other than Call of Duty has so much in common that answering any of them is almost totally interchangeable.

Could always borrow a gag from the Console game Persona. In their recent incarnations they spoof stuff like this and have reverential humor all the time. Of course they also take place in modern time periods so it makes sense to jump the shark on some things. Either way, I don't think this problem is as big as you guys think it is. If EA said "I really need Game X to get a good review and I would REALLY appreciate it if you made it happen" they would likely get a good score right there. Gaming websites can live and die based on exclusives, early coverage, and speed of review. A gaming site will lose hits to other similar sites if they piss off EA and as a result never get a review copy of Battlefield 4 or any pre game coverage of it. So EA really doesn't have to pay anyone, and PS: ME3 was a good game. The ending was a let down, oh god no, not that, I am sure that has never happened in a game before. Obsidian doesn't need to pay anyone or even be concerned with this. 1: Retro is "popular" right now, so likely it will get favorable looks to begin with. 2: It is a niche game, people in the niche will buy it regardless of review score. 3: Most gaming sites will give honest reviews 95% of the time and I see no reason to think PE won't get fair treatment. They may need to bring the gameplay into this decade though which could piss off die hards ;p

...To use your own movie as an example.... Hey now, that was MY movie. Make the right arguments for the right people. Sorry My point is no, a bluff and an intimidate are totally different things. They are different because one is a very literal threat you are capable of carrying out and will follow through with if you don't get what you want. The other is just a lie. To borrow poker terms... If I call your bluff you are screwed unless I am bluffing too. But if you aren't bluffing and you were simply intimidating me and really did have a powerful hand it is probably me that is about to lose. The problem is previous games handle it wrong when things like intimidates result in you doing nothing. For there to be a need for both bluff and intimidate then intimidate has to be a real threat. Which is exactly how I use it when I play RPGs, much to the dismay of many many npc's.

What about this is so hard for you to comprehend? A bluff is a LIE. You "say" you are going to attack the guard if he doesn't move aside but you fail your bluff check so he doesn't believe you. It was a LIE, so you don't actually attack. Assuming you pass the bluff check then obviously the guard is conned and steps aside. I can't see how you are failing to get this, it is really really simple. A Bluff is a lie, all the stuff you just said is total BS and if you threatened someone with something it was fake, you either can't or won't follow through with your threat. You "bluffed". An intimidate is a legitimate threat you are giving with 100% honesty and absolutely WILL carry out if the check fails. Lie VS truth, That is the difference. To use your own movie as an example. "Back off Ike or I will turn your head into a Canoe!" except this time you fail the bluff check and you really are out of bullets, hence the bluff. Ike says, "He's bluffin! Take him!" And it is you versus the clanton gang with an empty pistol. I sure hope Doc picks up the pace and shows up sooner rather than later. Now it is an intimidate check "Back off Ike or I will turn your head into a Canoe!" you fail the check Ike says "He's bluffin! Ta...." and doesn't get to finish his sentence cause your gun was loaded and you just turned his head into a canoe. Obviously passing either check results in the scene you get in the actual movie. Apparently we are the only two that can tell. The first is a bluff, you aren't a mod you literally can't lock the thread. The second is an intimidate because you are using something that is "possibly" true to convince people to stop going off topic. In reality both are basically bluffs because you can't really deliver on either.