Enclave

Such system is rather convenient but sometimes it is better not to update a game at all or to update it not to the last version. Sometimes patches introduce new bugs that best to be avoided (look at Skyrim and Creation Kit as examples). Very true. This is why I'm not a fan at all of Steams auto-updating. Sometimes game breaking glitches slip through. Not only that but sometimes when a game is updated old save files no longer work, we all have seen it happen before with various games out there. Steam just updates you, no choice unless you disabled updates before the patch came out. With an update button in the launcher this fixes that potential issue.

First of all, I've never played a game using the 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 do some other way, or take your lumps like a true adventurer and accept the fact that you won't be 100% prepared for every single encounter. I never said you needed as in actually needed specific spells. What I mean is that spells that have little use outside of specific circumstances and conditions rarely get used at all because nobody bothers memorising them in the Vancian system unless they know ahead of time that said situation will be coming up. Sure you can get by without said spell but that doesn't change the fact that said spell won't get used and rarely if ever will get used on a first play through. It's not so much about not being totally prepared that bothers me, it's that I get spells that I will never use on a first play through, they just sit in my spell book until the end of the game. What I suggest is that the spell uses per day is the same as the Vancian system, just you are not limited by what spells you have memorised. Now, I never played 3rd edition D&D but isn't this very similar to how the Sorcerer class played? I can't speak exactly on 3rd ED, but in general... yes. Sorcerers don't memorize - they have fewer spells, but they have "spell points" - or so many spells of each level they can cast per day. So if they have Magic Missile, Burning Hands and Sleep for 1st level spells and they can cast 4 1st level spells per day (4 level 1 spell points, as far as I'm concerned), they can cast 4 Magic Missiles or 4 Burning Hands or any combination of those 3 spells. Better. Not great, but better. See, that is how I would like it. However I think in the game the magic user shouldn't be restricted in how many spells they know. Just in how many uses per-day of each level they can cast.

First of all, I've never played a game using the 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 do some other way, or take your lumps like a true adventurer and accept the fact that you won't be 100% prepared for every single encounter. I never said you needed as in actually needed specific spells. What I mean is that spells that have little use outside of specific circumstances and conditions rarely get used at all because nobody bothers memorising them in the Vancian system unless they know ahead of time that said situation will be coming up. Sure you can get by without said spell but that doesn't change the fact that said spell won't get used and rarely if ever will get used on a first play through. It's not so much about not being totally prepared that bothers me, it's that I get spells that I will never use on a first play through, they just sit in my spell book until the end of the game. What I suggest is that the spell uses per day is the same as the Vancian system, just you are not limited by what spells you have memorised. Now, I never played 3rd edition D&D but isn't this very similar to how the Sorcerer class played?

That what wands are for. While yes that is indeed what wands are for I must say that in Baldur's Gate wands cost a bit too much. Anyways, you as a fan of the Vancian system. What are your thoughts of what I suggested on page 3?

I'll choose the 'DRM option' because I really like the Steam platform. When it's done downloading it's ready to play, I can uninstall and install with a few simple clicks and my friends are on Steam as well - which makes MP games easier. Ah, awesome. Thank you. Exactly what I was wanting to hear. Easy management of updates is another possible reason. EAsy management of updates is actually not a valid reason in my book. The best update option is always having an update button in the launcher with patches also being available on the games site if you prefer to manually patch the game rather than press the update button.

See, this still requires you to either look up spoilers in a FAQ or rely on 2nd play throughs. After all, there could well be a number of quirky seldom needed spells. Why force the player to guess at what they'll need? More often than not the player will guess wrong if they aren't cheating and thus seldom used spell once again goes without being used.

Alignment is far too restricting, forces you into playing a certain way.

Mrowaksu, how would you feel about a system like I described? Has the limited spell uses of the Vancian system while still giving you access to all your spells without having to guess what you'll need in the next day?

Eh, that's easily remedied by not giving a ton of mp to casters. Still limit how many spells per day they can cast, hell even limit how many spells of certain "levels" they can cast like you see in a Vancian system. Just don't limit them to which spells specifically they have to memorise every day. Give them full access to their entire repetoire at all times as long as they have the spell points to support it. Look at the original Final Fantasy. In that game your casters had full access to all their spells at all times. What limited them was they could only cast x spells from a certain spell level each day. This mimics what you're talking about the Vancian system doing but while giving casters their full range of options for whatever situation they find themselves in.

I'll choose the 'DRM option' because I really like the Steam platform. When it's done downloading it's ready to play, I can uninstall and install with a few simple clicks and my friends are on Steam as well - which makes MP games easier. Ah, awesome. Thank you. Exactly what I was wanting to hear.

If you don't mind me asking, why exactly would you still go for the Steam version when there is a DRM free option? They want to give the people different options which is a good think if you ask me. First they prefered Steam because some people like it because of its achievement and community systems and because it's already very popular and many people have nearly their complete game collection on Steam. Oh I get why Obsidian would offer both. I'm specifically asking Badprenup why he wants the Steam version over DRM free. I've never actually seen somebody explain why they want a DRM copy over a DRM free copy. After all, you can still throw non-steam games into your steam library, I do it all the time. I cannot imagine achievements alone (really that's the only bonus to steam over gog) would get somebody to choose a Steam copy.

I can support this model... If and only if you can both clearly identify to the game why you are doing this and you are obliged to follow through and abuse the reputation that you've gained for the PCs evil goals. Most commonly, though, when I see statements like that what is truly mean is something along the lines of: "An evil character can save the town in order to get the best rewards (XP / items / future quest possibilities) possible, then (well after the game and all possible squeals ends) he / she might do something that is slightly naughty, but only if there is no risk that he/she would get caught. Something like stealing a pen, perhaps. But regardless, he / she is evil because he / she is thinking really evil thoughts!!!" If the game can't distinguish between your actions and the actions of a paladin, either the game doesn't support playing evil or your definition of evil is very different from mine. One easy way to deal with this is to do away with alignment. Just give options. For instance, say you save a town you will not get +1 light side points or something of the sort. Instead it simply increases your reputation (reputation which shouldn't be used to determine if your character is good or evil, Hitler had a fantastic reputation at one time) this reputation opens more dialogue options, some of which could very well be you abusing your power for your own gain. Really, this is one of the reasons people want alignment to be removed from D&D. It's restrictive to actual RPing. I want dialogue options where I can go to the mayor and suggest I get a bonus for saving the town, or possibly that I should be "gifted" the towns magical weapon that was carried by a town founder and if he disagrees I can supply some kind of threat. If he decides to warn the town folk about what I'm saying to him I would love to ask him who would the townfolk believe? The person who saved the town from certain destruction at risk of his own life or the town mayor who hid in his office the entire time? See, doing that is pretty blatantly on the evil side but it's not unreasonably difficult to write and implement. It also gives me incentive to do good deeds but for reasons that are themselves evil. Bare in mind, that's only one example. It can be dealt with in any number of different ways and scenarios.

Oh, I played it. And hated it. We immediately did away with spell components as unnecessarily fun-killing. I've never played a role-playing game, in fact, where I've need spell components - unless you talk about the ones where you own a "components pouch" and it counts as what you need. Explanations or no of what happens, they are just explanations for a codified game mechanic - they needed to balance magic spells against other classes, and they needed to give advancing wizards something to look forward to. Instead of just gaining new spells, you gained the ability to cast spells more often. I'm about to commit heresy here, but I greatly preferred 4E's magic system. That's not heresy at all if you ask me. 4E gets way more flak than it deserves.

How would this solve the problem of more specialised spells never being used in your first play through? When you actually know what's coming then the Vancian system is amazing since you can be prepared. When you have no clue what you're about to encounter? You just have to load up on generic damage/status effect spells and it becomes dull and boring. When I play Baldur's Gate I only enjoy magic users now because I can prepare them well. I couldn't even imagine how much I'd have disliked playing one on my first play. Now, I love the idea of individual spells instead of certain levels of spells. I also want spells to not be rendered useless as you level up. I also like finding a scroll that has a spell on it and then adding that spell to my repetoire rather than just automatically learning new spells as I level up. Just please, no Vancian system, I just hate when quirky fun spells that are only useful in certain circumstances never get used on a first play through.

If you don't mind me asking, why exactly would you still go for the Steam version when there is a DRM free option?

I'm really not a fan of the Vancian system. Mainly the reason is that you never know what spell you're going to need until your 2nd play through of the game. This really hampers magic users. I like systems where I have all my spells available to me to use at a moments notice. Otherwise specialty spells just never get used.

I honestly REALLY liked De'Arnise keep in Baldur's Gate II. Would love that with more customisation options for decore.

They'd still be risking some of their own money, just not as much. They'd also have a significant discount on their advertising costs

I'd love for a lizardman type of race. I never used to be a fan of them but recently I've been playing a Sauran Gladiator in Talislanta and I'm really finding it interesting. It's a fun departure and tricky roleplaying as well since I'm playing a cold blooded reptile instead of a warm blooded mammal. I'm trying to think like a sentient reptile would think and it's really very fun and gives me a unique play experience. For instance, some might consider the character evil since he has no qualms with eating other sentients. Thing is though, the other sentients are mammals and thus not even remotely closely related to him genetically so it's not cannibalism at all. He doesn't view the other races as necessarily inferior (well, other than the ones that are inferior to him), he's a bit harsh and selfish but again, that doesn't make him evil. Anyways, it's hard to explain since I'm at work and cannot go into some huge post about the character, I'll just leave it at saying that it would give the writers something fun to write with, something that usually isn't dealt with, especially since lizardmen often are written as having very similar outlooks as other races.

Lol, this is hilarious. I said that publishers were going to try to pull this crap eventually in the comments on like day 1 or 2 of this kickstarter. People were calling me nuts and that publishers would NEVER do it because it apparently was just such a small amount of money to them and that they'd prefer the full sale instead of the kickstarter pledges. I told them publishers prefer up front money over a little more money later down the road. Glad I have proof now. ...well I would suppose that part of that deal was that the publisher would also pay x million $ if the kickstarter reaches y million $...resulting in a game with a budget of x+y. Otherwise this makes zero sense. It still makes zero sense because as it is now, Obsidian owns the IP and thus reaps all the rewards. I'd assume what happened is the other company tried to say "let us publish it because our name is bigger and therefore we can get more sales for your game," but unless this were true and the company could literally quadruple Obsidian's sales to the point where Obsidian STILL earns more despite sharing the profit, the offer is completely ****. Even IF it can quadruple the sales and turns them a profit, it's bogus because they'd lose their IP and only gain them short term profits, not so much longterm ones. Basically it's some giant company thinking they're so god damned awesome that their name will be enough to convince Obsidian to surrender their IP. That's what makes it so funny. It's like some guy demanding to get into a club for free because he's famous and he's egotistical enough to believe everyone will know him and bow to his every whim, and then the security is like "who the **** are you" and ends up stopping him and beating the **** out of him because they dunno him and don't see why he's entitled to enter for free. You can bet that the publisher offered Obsidian more funding as well well as deal with distribution and also quality control. They likely didn't just offer to slap their own name on the box. They would have tried to make the offer enticing to Obsidian rather than just flat out try to steal the IP from them.

Heck, when you think about it...it doesn't even need to be there at all! Obviously I disagree. As I've said, it gives the characters more depth and feeling. Makes them come more alive.

Link ? So far I have this: http://forums.obsidi..._120__p__725311 Not entirely what I had in mind but still informative. Yes, very informative. J.E. Sawyer doesn`t hate romance in games, he just hates how it`s portrayed in games usually. Seems he agrees with me based on his post in that thread. I hate repeating myself but do they have the resources to make such better romances? We'll see how much money they managed to cajole from the faithful. In all likelyhood they do. A romance plotline doesn`t need to be super elaborate, it doesn`t need to even be super complicated or central to the story. Just have it there to add more depth and feeling to the characters. Make it feel natural. It`s actually not THAT difficult to write and no, it doesn`t need to culminate in sex. The scripting for a romance plotline with a character is simple so all that it comes down to is the actual writing and how much time and money THAT would take up and the answer really is that it shouldn`t be some huge drain on resources.

Link ? So far I have this: http://forums.obsidi..._120__p__725311 Not entirely what I had in mind but still informative. Yes, very informative. J.E. Sawyer doesn`t hate romance in games, he just hates how it`s portrayed in games usually. Seems he agrees with me based on his post in that thread.

This would be true if Obsidian had all of the time and money in the world to develop it to whatever perfect standard that they have in mind with no feature excluded or under developed within the 18 month time frame they've set themselves for completing the game. I'm guessing that it is super rare that such games are ever developed. And the kind of romances that people are asking for are a lot of work, so you are most likely wrong that having them in the game won't make other parts of the game suffer. You know, I've noticed something about Kickstarter funded games. You go on the forums and you see arguments like this. They basically amount to "I don't want it so I'm just going to say that they're under a limited time and budget so it shouldn't happen, that way I don't look selfish for saying my wants are superior to the wants of others!" think of it this way: imagine how much more complete that the rushed ending of ME3 would be if Bioware hadn't spent so many long hours of creating romance cutscenes, dialogue, animations and acting. Would you rather have had a better ending if it meant fewer romances? Can't have everything you want, and developers have to make these decisions all of the time. It's one or the other The romance in the Mass Effect games had ZERO impact on the issues with the ending. Implying otherwise is being dishonest and manipulative. Actually, subjective opinion with a dollop of delusion.

Regardless, when people talk about an isometric camera they are referring more to the top down view at a slight angle, which does not prevent a mobile camera. If you want to split hairs with terminology, a "fixed" camera at ground level would still be "isometric" but people would be pissed. The absolute most you can get out of an isometric camera that moves is one that moves side to side.