ogrezilla

It doesn't make it right either. I'll just say that my proposal mantains the effectivenes of rouges and their "feel", while bing more credible. Compared to the standard. no mine obviously isn't right either. we are both talking about our opinions. neither is more valid than the other. Ideally, I would like to see both combat and utility/skilled styles of rogue be possible and both be effective. More options is a good thing. in my opinion of course

in your opinion. I love this design for rogues. Having a different opinion than you doesn't make mine wrong.

you're right, there is nothing wrong with just playing a game again without a ng+. Obviously nobody is suggesting that option be taken away. But playing through the game with a twist can be fun too. If it takes too much work, then fine don't include it. That's completely understandable. But it doesn't have to be an achievement grind mode. At best, it is a vastly different experience than the original playthrough. The issue is that to make it such a different experience would likely take way more work and money than it would be worth considering the constraints of this project. And honestly, I don't expect the game to be combat-oriented enough to be worth including such a mode. It would be a better feature in an Icewind Dale game. That doesn't mean its a bad mode or a gamerscore console mode; just that is might not fit the style or scope of this game.

not all of us. I like the Diablo style NG+ where you start over with all of your levels and items, but the game is harder to match it. Instead of being a cakewalk through the game, its a different feel to playing the game because both your party and the enemies have higher level abilities from start to finish. I don't see PE going in this direction - it may have a mega dungeon but it is a story driven game not a dungeon crawl/combat simulation. I'm not disagreeing. But that's the kind of NG+ I would enjoy. Not so much as diablo as far as gear and everything mind you. Or more leveling. I really don't care about the extra progression. But I would enjoy playing through where you and the enemies are high level from the start. Instead of clearing rats out of the basement with a club you are clearing hellspawn demons with high level spells and magic swords. I don't expect it at all though and its certainly not necessary, but I would enjoy a mode like that. NG+ doesn't have to be cheating. It can even be harder than the normal game.

not all of us. I like the Diablo style NG+ where you start over with all of your levels and items, but the game is harder to match it. Instead of being a cakewalk through the game, its a different feel to playing the game because both your party and the enemies have higher level abilities from start to finish.

I wouldn't use a ng+ mode if it just let me steamroll the game or something. But if it balanced the game around being high level the entire game by putting you against high level enemies the entire game, I would probably have fun with that. Not just higher damage and hp though; like actually harder enemies that are using higher level abilities and stuff. I certainly don't think its a necessary thing, but if it was there I'd play it.

For major story events, this definitely makes sense. When talking to shopkeepers and random townsfolk, I don't have a problem with having a spokesperson. Though the spokesperson should be limited to what makes sense for his or her character. I shouldn't be able to force fleshed out NPC companions to completely go out of character.

Neither Real Time with Pause nor Turn based is inherently more strategic or tactical than the other. Developers tend to make RTwP games more lenient as far as requiring the best possible strategy or tactics, but that is a development choice and not an inherent flaw of a RTwP system. RTwP typically makes up for that shortcoming by requiring you to keep track of the entire battle at once. Neither is better; they are just different. I personally enjoy both. I would say single unit at a time turn based (like final fantasy tactics) is my favorite, following by real time with pause followed by full team turn based (like fire emblem.) But really it just comes down to the game.

the definition of "fact" has been completely lost in this thread.

This is wrong. Period. By having the real time element you are, by definition, incorporating an element of "twitch" gameplay. You can call that tactical if you want to, thinking on your feet etc, but it is far different from having the absolute tactical field control which is only possible in pure turn based. I'm fine with PE having RTWP, but don't try to say it's somehow more tactical than turn based... the pause function and autopause features gives pretty much just as tactical of an experience to RTwP as turn based. Its different, but its not any less tactical. Though as you say, its not any more tactical either. Its different.

I like both.

I'm ok with that as long as the most obvious way to use a mechanic is how it is "supposed" to be used. Don't include a rest mechanic with very few restrictions and then balance the game around people restricting their rest. The rest mechanics and spell mechanics of the IE games completely clash with one another. the main thing is the different mechanics of the game need to mesh together well.

the game designer. Icewind Dale, for example, is seemingly balanced with the assumption that you would only rest occasionally and be careful with your spells and supplies. If you use the rest and shopping mechanics (go back to town whenever you want with no drawback) as they are designed, the game is incredibly easy. But the first time through the game, I was always going to be prepared for something that actually required me to use the mechanics as they were seemingly designed to be used. It never happened and the game was disappointingly easy the first time through. If the game was designed to be easy that's fine; I just doubt that was the case. I would love something like you are describing to be included. Though I disagree with you saying the system isn't the problem. The consequences and restrictions (or lack there of) are a part of the system. If PnP RPGs have different consequences and restrictions than cRPGs, then they aren't using the same system. That's semantics though. I agree with your point . The basic ideas are fine; they just aren't implemented particularly well in most cRPGs.

Its not needed, but it would be a nice convenience. I hate backtracking in any of the old IE games. You either have to go into the menu or drag the screen to where you want to go. I'm playing IWD right now and I constantly wish I had minimap controls; particularly when I am walking back through areas I've already cleared. I'd like both a full map in the menus and a small, control integrated version of it as a minimap. Let us toggle the minimap on/off and everyone's happy.

The first time through the game, how do we know what we should be doing ourselves to improve the experience? Simply put, we don't. Sure, the second time through I can limit my supplies to add to the challenge. I can limit my resting to when I know I need it. But the first time I go up against a tough looking enemy you better believe I will be fully prepared if the game mechanics encourage it. Why would mechanics be in the game if not to be used? Resting every time its available is not exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. Going back to town for arrows any time you run out isn't exploiting the system, its using the system how it was designed. If the design doesn't match up with the intentions of the developer -- particularly in terms of difficulty -- the player will suffer for it. There is no good reason to assume I should be adding my own personal limitations to these mechanics to get the desired difficulty level for the game. If I can rest and resupply easily, balance the fights around the assumption that I will be rested and well supplied. In general, a system that encourages undesired actions is poorly designed.

I love games that allow a sort of new game plus mode where the game is scaled to the higher level. Playing through the game where every fight is a high level battle is fun. Just steamrolling through the game with high level characters doesn't interest me though.

I do not want food or hunger or anything of the sort.

The problem I have is with the difficulty of the game for myself. If I don't know what to expect throughout the game, I'm not going to add my own limitations to create extra difficulty. I'm going to play the game the way it seems to be designed. So if I have access to unlimited resting or unlimited or super cheap supplies, I'm always going to be rested and well supplied. If the game is designed -- and the encounters are balanced -- for me to have to conserve my arrows and my spells but then I have easy access to replenishing both, the game ends up being easier than its meant to be. The second time through the game I can limit myself based on what I know is coming, but the first time through I will just assume I need to take advantage of the available supplies or resting or whatever. Because why would they be easily available otherwise? Basically, what is the difference between using an intended game mechanic and exploiting a game mechanic? If I have a button that fully heals me and recharges my spells with very little drawback, how is it an exploit to use it repeatedly? Its not. Its using the mechanic as it is designed. If the obvious use of the mechanic goes against the intended design of the game then I would call that a poorly designed mechanic, not a mechanic being exploited.

pretty much every strategy game that gets made has a minimap and they are nearly identical to a cRPG in terms of camera angles and basic controls. A Dragon Age or NWN "radar" style minimap that is zoomed in close and shows a vision cone would be pointless. A full area minimap like you see in the Warcraft/Starcraft games or LoL/DotA would be great.

that sounds good to me. Its just the stuff I'll end up with a ton of that I wouldn't want piling up.

I'm all for separate inventory or automated inventory cleanup for quest items. If I don't know if I can drop items that I don't need any more you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to check a guide to find out. I get the arguments against it and I can accept them as long as we aren't stuck holding 100s of keys and whatnot.

why would it be not locked? the backgrounds are prerendered art assets... so I guess you will not be able to change your camera view... or do you mean locked in the sense of not-scrollable? ok that would be stupid ^^ they mean the second. though his example of NWN2 isn't true as you could unlock the camera in options. Though I do think it had a limit of how far you could scroll it.

that last bit I think is key. Companions will have their own personality so they should have different conversation choices than the PC. Their conversation choices should make sense for their character. If I have some super goody-goody paladin, I shouldn't be able to make him threaten to kill innocent people for example.

I am really hoping that the leveling system for PE will allow for this dungeon to be fully explored without ruining potential to import your protaganist from PE into PE2 due to level cap, but with another huge city being implemented now as well as having one already, plus a stronghold, am I crazy in thinking that there will be too much content for a carryover into PE2!?!? honestly I would be fine with this dungeon not giving experience aside from any levels that are included in the main story. Story and loot seem like fine rewards for it.