ogrezilla

I hope the game feels like a game and not an adventure simulator. I think the old IE games did it just fine.

This is kind of where I was going. It's one thing to have a bartering system if the PC and companions come across an isolated tribe that is quite primitive, so maybe that's the only thing they're used to, and the PC and companions have to barter shoe for fish type deals. But generally speaking, most established and civilized populations will have some sort of "gold" monetary standard in place to buy and sell goods for. Right. Basically it just cuts out going to somewhere to convert my dollars to euros. If the merchant in Fallout (and even Skyrim) ran out of bottle caps then you could barter with him, even though the value of the items was still measured in bottle caps. I used it all the time. I would trade all of the heavy stuff I had for light weight drugs and stimpacks. I don't think anybody here really has a problem with this system either. like you said, that's still a currency system. It just lets you skip the step between selling and buying. That is definitely a nice thing to have if the vendors have a limited gold supply.

Why specifically? Does that matter? I don't think he's trying to argue with you, I think he's just trying to learn what it is you didn't like about it, and thus get ideas for something better. For example, saying that I don't like D&D style stat systems for CRPGs because it ties conversation stats (Int) to specific classes (Wizard), and thus limits your conversation options (if you chose to play a non-caster) or your class options (if you want to have all the dialog options), is a lot more useful than just saying that I don't like the system. I certainly like the sound of the proposed system that separates combat skills from non-combat skills, so that one doesn't come at the expense of the other. I think they should somewhat come at the expense of the other. But as you said, it shouldn't encourage anyone who wants good non-combat options to be a certain class. Whatever disadvantage a warrior has for investing in non-combat skills, a rogue a mage and a cleric should have roughly the same disadvantage. What about something like this? Strength: does roughly what it always does Dex: does roughly what it always does Constitution: does roughly what it always does Soul Attack: Basically does what int normally does for combat. Needs a better name. Soul Defense: Basically does what wisdom normally does for combat. Needs a better name. Skill: Increases the amount of points you get each level to invest in non-combat skills. Charisma: Increases conversation skills or gives points to invest in social skills. The last two could possibly be combined. What this does is force you to sacrifice a bit of your combat proficiency to be more proficient at non-combat stuff. But it does it in a way that doesn't favor any specific classes.

I don't think bartering is necessary. It may make sense, but for the most part its just an unfun complication. Having some specific places not accept currency could be ok, but it shouldn't be common.

I would have loved all humans. Just different cultures of humans.

ya I'm even just thinking what Chrono Trigger would be like with player decision input. How many people would kill Magus before he joined you if they game let them? definitely. Though the crazy guy who just wants to watch the world burn has his place too. Ideally, they aren't strong enough to do it without being smart though. Kefka would have been boring if he was all powerful from the start.

I would say the Alien there wasn't the real villain in that story, though. The alien was just an "elemental" force, providing a background for the conflict with the true villain - the "company" acting through the android character (forogt his name). Villains (in my mind) cannot be inhuman - otherwise they become just another force of nature, like hurricanes or disease. Elemental forces can make for very effective 'things that work against you', though. Say what you will about FFX, but Sin was fascinating and terrifying when it was just an unexplainable force of nature, lashing out and destroying everything with no reason, pity nor mercy, rich and poor alike. The real villains in that game were silly and lackluster, but Sin, Sin. Sin was wonderful, and I'm sure many people bought the game because of its powerful imagery. At least until they reveal what it actually is. Sin was great, but that kind of threat needs to be used properly. The part of that story that really stuck out to me was how the entire world was just refined to the idea that the best they could do was temporarily defeat it. If the story was just about some monster that they all agreed they needed to destroy I think a lot of the emotion would have been taken out of it. But everyone had to be convinced that they didn't have to repeat history over again; they could stand up and actually defeat it. But I do agree. Sin was great. It was just a constant feeling of looming defeat. Similar to Lavos in Chrono Trigger. Completely flat "character" but it didn't matter. It destroyed the world. I never hated Lavos yet it was a very effective big bad threat. Funny you mention Lavos and Sin because I remember both of those villains / force of nature well and I thought they were wonderful antagonists when I was playing those games. They were the end boss but there were other villains to take of as well. DA: Origins also had a force of nature enemy at the end with the Scourge / horde dragon thing but I didn't have the same feeling for that enemy as compared to Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy X. My biggest problem with DA: Origins was that it felt like it was only Act 1 of a three Act play and it just left me hanging after I defeated the dragon. I was like that's it? It's like playing BG2 and getting to Spellhold and beating Irenicus there and the game is over. BG2 would not have been as well beloved if the game simply ended there and that was the feeling I got when I finished DA: Origins. I never actually finished DA:O so I can't comment on that. But I do know that kind of big boss needs to be handled properly. For one thing, it can't just randomly show up at the end. And honestly I think that kind ends up working better the less you know about them. Story-wise, the real villains of FFX and CT aren't Sin and Lavos, they are the people trying to use or manipulate them for their own gain. It works very well for video games because it allows the story to feature more realistic villains but still finish with a supreme boss fight. They both also had extra credibility added to their threat by showing what the world is like after they have done what they do. wild prediction: the "event" will be some sort of vision of the future ala Frodo looking into the mirror of Galadriel.

I would say the Alien there wasn't the real villain in that story, though. The alien was just an "elemental" force, providing a background for the conflict with the true villain - the "company" acting through the android character (forogt his name). Villains (in my mind) cannot be inhuman - otherwise they become just another force of nature, like hurricanes or disease. Elemental forces can make for very effective 'things that work against you', though. Say what you will about FFX, but Sin was fascinating and terrifying when it was just an unexplainable force of nature, lashing out and destroying everything with no reason, pity nor mercy, rich and poor alike. The real villains in that game were silly and lackluster, but Sin, Sin. Sin was wonderful, and I'm sure many people bought the game because of its powerful imagery. At least until they reveal what it actually is. Sin was great, but that kind of threat needs to be used properly. The part of that story that really stuck out to me was how the entire world was just refined to the idea that the best they could do was temporarily defeat it. If the story was just about some monster that they all agreed they needed to destroy I think a lot of the emotion would have been taken out of it. But everyone had to be convinced that they didn't have to repeat history over again; they could stand up and actually defeat it. But I do agree. Sin was great. It was just a constant feeling of looming defeat. Similar to Lavos in Chrono Trigger. Completely flat "character" but it didn't matter. It destroyed the world. I never hated Lavos yet it was a very effective big bad threat.

I am almost positive there will be a faction or country that has different beliefs, but I think it would be cool if the PC could be one of them. Though that could be an option other than race when creating the character. Sadly, that would probably change the story pretty dramatically and end up being too much extra work to be worth it.

I don't want to have to practice in my video games. its not fun.

Inhuman villains can be great as well. I think that the the villain that best fits the topic of this thread should be humanoid. In Aliens we didn't "love to hate" them, we were just terrified of them. Their motivations were so foreign to our own that we couldn't even attempt to understand them, only to fight or flee. These kinds of villains do have a good place in sci-fi and fantasy settings, but I think they do fall short when it comes to being a memorable villain. Villains need to have something relatable to ourselves so we can put their decisions into relation. ya, aliens aren't really what I'd call great villains. They are a great threat, but not great villains. there is a place for that obviously.

a race that has a different belief on how the soul/magic connect works than most of the world could be interesting.

I don't really care how exactly the system works, I just want every class to be able to invest in the non-combat skills with the same effects on combat. Don't make intelligence improve both conversation skills and combat spellcasting. If a warrior has to sacrifice combat effectiveness to improve non-combat stats, every class should have to do the same.

Namek

Magneto is a good example. He would argue he is liberating the mutants from the oppressive humans. Ozymandias from Watchmen is another that could fall into that category.

agreed. it makes perfect sense on paper but it just doesn't translate well into gaming in my opinion.

it makes sense when you think about it, but it rarely works well in game imo. It almost always encourages a playstyle of grinding specific skills instead of just playing how you want to play.

Wasn't it done like this in Kotor? Some classes or setups still got more skills and some still got more feats so not everyone was great at both but they were still separate points to distribute. So just because they are separate point systems doesn't mean everyone gets the same amount of points to distribute in each. So even if you don't have to choose between magic missile and herbalism, you may still have to choose between being really good with magic missile while being a pretty bad herbalist, vice versa or being somewhere in between. Or maybe you can be really good with both, but then you pretty much aren't good at anything else.

the games tend to encourage min-maxing. Or as you said, they do very little to punish it.

If that's how it works, I hope there's a way to change the balance of the two. So somewhere in character creation I could choose if I want to get more combat skills or more non-combat skills. Kotor was like that with feats and skills.

I definitely like the idea of having antagonists or rivals that you know more personally. people that had similar upbringing aside from a few key events or differences that could change the values of each person.

ya from like 15 minutes ago on kickstarter. its not on the forum here yet.

referring to the part where combat skills won't have an effect on the non combat skills? I really hope that includes combat and non combat stats.

i came here to say this.

I just said it in the thread about graphics. But I really do wonder if the goal is to make a 2014 game that pays homage to games from the 90's or if the goal is to make a game that feels like it was made in the 90's. I hope its the former.