ogrezilla

I really hope they fully embrace making a game that isn't tied down by any sort of D&D mechanics. Make this game their own.

the big problem I see with most games and shifters is that they basically just end up separating the roles of each form too much. If I want that character to do damage, I will always use this form etc. Shifting should be relatively active; not just pick one form and use it all the time because it fits the role you want that character to fill. Like you said, giving more specific skills to different forms would help that.

as long as its balanced in a way that its not just better than the normal warriors, I would like something like that. Give up a little bit of base damage and/or tankiness for the added utility.

The old games are great, but they aren't perfect. Rest spamming is one of my least favorite mechanics from icewind dale. There's no reason the flaws in them can't be improved upon.

to be fair, potions typically get used from a quick slot which I assume is more like on your belt or somewhere much easier to access.

archers would need to be made noticeably stronger if they were adding such a drawback to them.

I dont see any reason this would have to be true.

then don't use this option.

why would it bother you what others do in a single player game? Don't like the game mechanic? Don't use it...simple as that.

1. CRPGs are combat centric. Even the greatest exceptions are combat centric in their mechanics. And Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (two out of three) are a lot of things, but exceptions to that. 2. Optional easy modes exist. Even very easy modes exist. Below that is skip for no game-reason mode. 1. I'd say they are generally a mix of combat and conversation centric. Icewind Dale definitely leaned towards combat, but PS:T is on the other side. 2. I don't really know what we're arguing about then.

Oh, let's be clear, As far as it's just an option *and* it doesn't affect the design in a relevant way, I don't have any issue with people playing on Easy mode. It's just that I genuinely have a hard time understanding how people could be so easily dismissive about game mechanics in a videogame. "Oh, you know, I just like to click autoattack and have a easy win". Whatever floats your boat, I guess. Still, I can't help but wonder where's the fun in *literally* ditching a big chunk of the game. It's not like I am advocating for the most hardcore challenge (while I can appreciate it, I can also see why many don't); it's that I find games that play themselves and where my input is hardly needed one of the most annoying, mind-numbing trends in the game industry. some people legitimately aren't very good at this kind of combat. That doesn't even mean they don't enjoy it; they just want it to be easier.

You don't? I mean hopefully we get situations like "You encountered a goblindirewolf!" and you get these choices: 1) Attack! 2) Parry. 3) Flee. 4) Romance. That way you don't have to combat. I wouldn't mind an option to throw a piece of meat or something to distract the goblindirewolf, allowing me to carry on my way. Or maybe I could even tame it with a hunter or something and have it as a pet. I wouldn't call that romance, but I think love between a man and his pet is very real.

how would it possibly hurt your game experience? It has absolutely no in game drawbacks.

in a single player game it really seems like there is no drawback to this aside from any potential work it takes to implement it. It seems easy enough to me to add, but I am no programmer. If it would take any significant amount of resources to put it in then I would say keep it out. If its something simple to add I don't see how anybody could be bothered by it.

No, that's exactly what I'm referring to as breadth. Yes, of course they have to add content when they add a companion. What I'm saying is that I'd probably rather have 3 companions with 50 pages (for lack of a better unit of measure) of dialogue and character, than 150 companions with 1 page of character. And yes, probably not necessary, but it didn't seem impossible that people who had played other Infinity Engine games but not Torment are on this forum, and I really hate spoilers. I appreciate it. I just downloaded PS:T from GOG.

I don't see why that should be true. No, this is first and foremost a game, and story never comes first in a game, not compared to game mechanics, balance, user interface, overall fun and so on. Of course, in RPGs, like in graphic adventures, story is far more relevant than in other genres and can add a lot to the experience, but it still is "additional value", it shouldn't ever be the core purpose of the experience. interacting with the story is a major part of most IE games. as is character creation and progression. those are all part of the game mechanics you speak of. And they are all designed for and around combat. If combat becomes pointless (and by pointless I mean whatever satisfies the 'only for the dialogues' player base), then those mechanics are pointless as well. 1. I completely disagree that these games are designed completely around combat. There are stats, skills and spells with little to no combat implications. 2. make it an optional easy mode. everybody wins.

I am for this as well. Not a huge deal, but if it is included I would use it and enjoy it.

agreed Ancoron. Though the game will need to be designed and balanced around having it one way or the other. In this case, I think they pretty much have to balance around FF being on. People can then choose to make it easier.

Totally disagree. Combat should come first. Fluff is just fluff. I love the combat in RPGs. It can make or break the game for me. But calling the story "fluff" in a game designed largely around interacting with the story is ridiculous to me. I expect to spend pretty similar time in conversations as in combat in this game.

alright, that's fine. It really doesn't matter since we're arguing about the terms being used more than the actual point.

I would probably give the extra for the novella if I could have an option of "Digital copy of the game and the Novella" with nothing else.

1) Yes it did. It actually worked pretty good for simple tasks like auto counter-casting, or healing. There were several scripts available, on each character card, to chose from. 2) We don't know if it's "typical fantasy" (i hope it's not), but to answer your question: it's not really a problem for me, as I've usually played by standard DnD rules with ff on, but I also see no problem turning ff off option for sake of people who simply don't enjoy battles in RPG games. 1. Alright, well apparently I never used those scripts and feel kind of dumb right now. 2. ya, 2 is sort of null since the answer to 1 was yes. I just meant without AI spell casting there was no AI friendly fire to worry about, but since I was wrong about the AI my point is void. I really am all for having an option for turning FF off. I will keep it on but there's really no reason not to have the option available.

Considering that the engine will be isometric and based on Unity, I'd imagine level design features will be likely more on the intuitive side. Certainly it will be less complex with regard to lighting, DoF, etc., compared to toolsets for 3D engines. ok then, I might have to change my answer. Mod tools as a stretch goal may cause me to raise my pledge. Granted, not that much as I'm still poor. But mod tools can potentially add an awful lot of extra "game" to be played. That's the stuff I'd want to add money for; not the extra stuff like books and maps. I'd look at a map once, say "that's neat" and never touch it again.

Yeah, but it's the interactivity part, with choices and consequences and the world reacting to your input, that makes it worthy and "gamey", not the story itself, which as I said when good it's mostly added flavor (and when it's bad detracted one). I would pick the most solid RPG in terms of mechanics with the ****tiest story over a poor game tied to the most impressive story ever told in a game. If I want quality narrative above everything else, videogames definitely aren't where I look for it. I have a feeling you are not in the majority on this site then. either way, I would classify interacting with the story as part of the story. But now we're arguing semantics.

Like romances amirite? right. like romances. or any other character interactions and conversations that will likely make up the majority of the game.