maggotheart

I made a similar suggestion concerning different states of being with a poll if you want to check out what people thought: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60709-states-of-being/ Seems like a mixed reaction though most people seemed to think it was a good idea in principle. In particular I think the idea of becoming undead has a lot of potential... Perhaps what class you are could determine the kind of undead being you can become: Fighters become master vampires, Wizards become liche lords, Priests become tortured wraiths and so forth.

Although the OP is hyperbolic and a little OTT I actually found myself agreeing about the stretch goals: A big dungeon is great but I would expect that if they're going to put one in the game it should be as big as it needs to be, not 'exactly 17 floors because that's how many backers we got'. How big is a 'floor' or 'level'? Since we don't know that, the stretch goal is meaningless. The adventurers hall idea left me scratching my head because I just assumed the game would include the ability to create my party if I wanted to (like most IE games). So a capability is being added to the game that really should have been there to begin with. And again, since we don't really know what is and isn't confirmed for the game, they could take any aspect of the game they were already going to do and say 'we're adding this as a stretch goal!' and no one would be the wiser. As far as adding new classes and regions to the game, again we don't know what the existing classes or regions are going to be so how can they say "we're ADDING this as a stretch goal"... adding to what? I trust Obsidian to produce a quality product and can't wait for the game, but these stretch goals are just confusing me more than anything else.

Critical hits and misses diminish the importance of the players tactics and skill and increases the reliance on simple luck and I think that's a bad thing. I don't want to get wiped out because a monster got a lucky shot in and blinded my fighter, forcing me to reload an old save, and then come back with the exact same tactics to win the battle. Or conversely, setting up a brilliant tactic only for it not to matter because I got a lucky critical that stunned my opponent, trivializing the whole encounter.

A lot of great arguments posted here. The fact that we don't know the lore and ecology - and that it could be something we can't imagine - is exactly why I think this idea can fit. Do vampires have to be soulless monsters? Do Werewolves have to change into beasts only on the full moon? Do these states of being have to automatically make the PCs out of control or predators of humans? Not at all... These arechetypes could easily be appropriated and modified as needed (tied into the soul idea?) to make the idea of a 'lycanthropic PC' work in PO. I'd also like to note that, I was only throwing Vampires and Werewolves out there because they are the most well known examples, the states of being don't have to be traditional or monstrous, they could be literally anything; like (off the top of my head) partially elemental, ethereal, infested, mutant shapeshifting DNA, cherubic, cursed, and so on and so forth. I just think that this would add a 3rd dimension to the traditional race/class paradigm allowing for a greater number of combinations and thus more replay value, as well as all the story and sidequest implications which I believe would be very interesting as well.

Who decided that was a 'truth'?

I guess the discussion becomes, how do you define 'enough' ? There are degrees of depth in characterization from a game like Planescape and something like Icewind Dale.

The Shadowrun kickstarter had a poll where backers were asked whether they wanted another city, or an expanded main city. Although it was eventually decided to add a new city (I think Berlin), there were a significant number of people (30%?) who just wanted more depth to the main city, so I think this is a perfectly valid point he's trying to make.

Hmmm, , I'd have a hard time believing - if vampire, ghosts, lycanthropes and posessed states are treated similarly to how they are historically in human culture - that you'd have anyone who'd be willing to work with you once it became "known" what you were. Yes I know that you're supposed to be able to solo the game, but I'm not sure I'd be for solo-only content (or more specifically content that forced soloing) as something that resources should go for. Mutated - maybe if the game was Gamma World... I understand your points of view and don't entirely disagree - but wouldn't 'godlike or planetouched' races be just as 'out of place' as someone who was affected by one of these states? I'm not sure there is a huge distinction there and as we know godlike races are already confirmed for the game.

Confirmed multiplayer. Bring me co-op!

I think the vast majority of us here are adults... if you're going to post, care to explain why you think it's a bad idea?

Fair points, I'd like to see original content too, but I don't think this idea has been done well in a game before. As for the ghostly thing, I was just throwing ideas out there but I was picturing something like an empty suit of armour with some shades of corporealness inside, perhaps tied to the world through some sort of curse - that's something easily solved by a little creative writing..

So we have races (human, elf, dwarf) and classes (fighter, mage, rogue), how about also states of being (vampiric, lycanthropic, posessed, mutated, ghostly, etc) I think it would be cool to have a lycanthropic dwarven thief or a vampiric elven mage. There could be racial exclusions (plane-touched cannot become infected with lycanthropy and so on), methods of becoming infected / cured, and special skill trees for the different states.

Baldurs Gate 2 is the best cRPG ever made, and a big reason for that (for me) is that it has co-op multiplayer. This is the game that got my wife into RPGs and we have played it through together probably more than a dozen times with different combinations - love the tactics and other mods that are available. Planescape: Torment is my favorite story of any RPG - though it is not a perfect game the story alone elevates it to #1 RPG of all time I enjoyed a bunch of RPGs on the older consoles but the best was always Chrono Trigger Final Fantasy series had some excellent entries though I haven't liked the direction much lately Mass Effect series is just plain fun... I'll admit I stayed away from 3 due to some high profile issues though Fallout series are all awesome Arcanum deserves a mention because it did things that havent been done properly since

I always play games on the hardest difficulty and often find that it is still way too easy (FO3, FO:NV, Mass Effect, Skyrim, etc, etc) so I'd just ask for a hard mode that is actually hard.

"#$#$ you, as long as I get mine". Divisive, selfish and ultimately self-defeating. I thought this crowd would have more solidarity considering the funding model, but nope! Many on these forums actively work against their fellow gamers interests, dividing themselves up into armed camps instead of supporting each other. Here is a great post satirizing this attitude, which hits the nail on the head: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60513-please-less-classes-races-factions-companions-regions-and-other-features/ All I can hope for is that the devs don't listen to the so-called 'fans' too much and translate the game into as many languages as possible. With the support of French, German and Spanish old-school gamers, maybe the next game will get even more funding.

Spot on, I enjoyed it very much

Ugh I've seen this discussion go around for other projects and the arguments are always the same, circling around the same points over and over and over again. Some people are just against multiplayer no matter what. They will say: "It will destroy the narrative! People won't want to read text when playing together! All resources should be spent on SP! Games shouldnt have multiplayer, its ruining gaming!", all of which are nonsense arguments, but it's understandable considering the demographic this game is targeting (old school gamers) who have (rightly) been burned by lazy/tacked on/otherwise not done well multiplayer experiences in many, many games over the intervening years. I'm hoping the developers have the fortitude to fight through this attitude and deliver some nice co-op multiplayer a la Baldurs Gate so I can enjoy this with my wife and friends after playing through SP. Demonstrate how it can be done right.

I'm a backer for Wasteland 2 and one of the ideas they had for NPCs are that they should be like real people, with flaws and thoughts of their own that don't always do what the player might want them to do. For example, a companion might be addicted to health pots or whatever and steals from the party, hates dwarves and attacks them on sight, demands a share of the loot, doesn't trust wizards or magical items, deathly afraid of dogs, etc, etc. I think it's a great way to go and hope to see something similar here.

The manner of casting spells could be different depending on the kind of mage you are, allowing both systems to be used, or a mix of the two, as well as something entirely different. That would be the ideal situation IMO. Magic could be item based, forcing mages to carry around scrolls, spellbooks, magical tomes and components to complement / augment their existing spell capabilities. Certain spellbooks could produce a stronger version of the spell, but would require you to have it in hand while casting. (1 Handed / 2 Handed Spell Book items) Instead of using mana, spells could drain life or stamina, leading to death or exhaustion if they drop too low. The cost could be lessened by having the proper components, or if you are casting from a scroll or spellbook. The possibilities are endless, so I don't see this as an either / or proposition. I hope they come up with something we haven't seen before.

Personally I would love to see as much blood and gore in my combat as possible. It makes the battles more fun and satisfying. I'd like to see OTT death animations for critical kills, spatter me with blood spray and give me varied methods for deconstructing my opponents. It would be nice if the corpses remained on the maps so I could survey my handiwork after the battle is over as well.

If there was one thing I just could not stand about the Witcher, it was how certain NPCs would move around, or had to be approached during the night or day only in order to get information / turn in a quest. So I would run up to the tavern to complete a quest, and the NPC i needed to talk to wouldnt be there because it was night time. So I had to run to a campfire somewhere to wait until daytime, then run back to the tavern to find the NPC. Then they would send me somewhere, but I had to be there during the day only, so I had to run back to a campfire and wait for day, and on and on (and on and on!)... Drove me up the wall and I didnt appreciate the 'realism' at all. If day/night cycles are going to be used, I'd prefer they were used sparingly and intelligently and not simply to create more realism. In an open world RPG, I really dislike being forced to do things because of a time constraint. I like browsing my inventory, talking to people, getting sidetracked by optional quests, exploring interesting things while on my way somewhere, etc. I'd prefer no time constraints at all, just let me play how I want to play.

I'd like to see undead in the game, but they should be rare and different from the standard so there is still an element of discovery, horror and mystery to them. If I had to choose between the standard skeleton/zombie trope and no undead at all, I'd rather have no undead and have some kind of monster I've never seen before instead.

I chose 'other' because I don't think all of the choices listed are mutually exclusive.

I agree with this so much, it was the first thing I thought when I heard "new IP" and "elves and dwarves" in the video. There is a real opportunity to do something different and original here. If I could have one wish come true for this project, it would be this.

If I could just throw my 2 cents in, I am not a fan of romances in general and if they must be in the game I hope they are optional and low key so I can ignore them. My preference would be zero resources spent on romances. When did romances become standard fare in these games? That said it could be interesting if some of the NPCs got involved with each other which might present some gameplay challenges - like for example one of the NPCs refused to listen to your orders and defended their girlfriend on the battlefield, or if they started bickering at an inopportune moment, etc. but I have no interest in playing pretend romance myself in my fantasy RPG.