Rink

It is an option as well of course. But story-driven RPGs often tend to include the tutorial in the main game and want to explain the story in it (if they can't afford 12 minutes of video before the game starts :D). Also I think it is nice if in the tutorial you also have the motivation to explore the area and find stuff you can take to the main game, so it doesn't seem like a waste of time to go there, if after you are there, you realise that you already know all the mechanics. I would like the tutorial to be part of the main game and just have an option to show tipps you need to play the game or not do that. I guess that is how most games did it anway. I don't think that consoles are to "blame". I think developers just realised that nobody reads the handbook and it is more fun to include the most important informations directly in the game and save the cost of 200 pages of handbook. And to be honest I am grateful if the game explains crucial things to me instead of laughing in my face if I can't figure them out. I wish DA:O had told me that I need to collect backpacks to get more inventory-space and that they only very rarely will be sold at all. @Sacred_Path thanks. I will now put ash on my head and go watch those tutorials, because although I always thought I played quite a lot of games in my days I haven't played a single one of them and thus cannot really compare my experiences to them..

I am one of those significant minority of a minority Planescape:Torment people you guys have been talking about. I liked baldurs gate 2 as well of course. I think the poll gives the team a clear direction and it is the same they already proposed in the kickstarter-video (well with a bit less icewinddale maybe?), so that is a good thing. If you make a joke-line in any election you will often get a lot of votes for that, that is normal. Maybe they should add such a vote to the US-presidential election as well. I am sure Boo would get a lot of votes.

To me it really didn't.. but maybe I need a shorter leash than others to be motivated enough to go after main storyline. It surely is a good game, but for me a middle-path between urgency and exploration is the best. Without timelimit (hated that in fallout - and so you can go exploring as much as you want) but with urgency in story, so you are motivated to go save something from certain doom. @mstark yea you are right. If you have an indication of where you should go and the people that play it aren't some new gamers that will die to random encounters without having a tutorial of how to attack, then you can also make a more open tutorial of course. But you should still make a good introduction then (before u are free to go), that also motivates you to go where you should go, so you receive the beginning of the storyline and you start caring for the goals you should care for, I guess...

Hmm, well in tv-series often they get the information that their season isn't going to be renewed before they are cancelled. So they can prepare an ending for the story that does not leave a lot of loose storylines or cliffhangers for the fans and that is nice. In games you will decide after the game is finished (number of sales) if there will be a next game, so many games make some sort of cliffhanger and then may never get a follow-up game while others make a real ending and then have trouble making a sequel that can pick up somewhere without it sounding like bad writing (save the world again! Come on that is not so hard, you did it once already, but you will still start by slaying rats now). I like games to have a real ending. They can have some things that aren't explained or where you do not know where it is going though, but not so much in the main plot. Taking over the protagonist to a sequel usually just ends up being stupid in the second game, you "regress" with all your powers or everyone else gets a lot mightier because after defeating the mightiest creatures in part 1 now have trouble killing some random pirate or wolf. But well it are cliffhangers that may cause the adventure dreamfall to have a sequel. So maybe cliffhangers are a good thing for writers to secure their future Source

I think it is hard to balance out the urgency of a main plot and the feeling of exploring. For example in morrowind I found myself not knowing what to do other than just exploring and getting bored of that and stopped playing. I think there needs to be *some* urgency of a plot or you will have no reason to go on at all and just get bored. Of course the exploration feeling is very nice too, but I personally get that everytime if the main story brings me somewhere or if I have to go through an area to get to the next main plot area anyway. Had nothing against the dungeon. It is linear, but has lots of different ideas in them, stuff you can find, story-lines you can pick up and you get to travel with your "best friend" until she gets taken, what adds a lot to the motivation to go and search for her, if you don't know her from BG1. I think it is well done and can't give a lot of examples that made a better job. Every starting/tutorial level is linear, because you have to build up knowledge of the game. Damn you guys, now I want to play that game again.

If there is an antagonist at all, then I am on the side that agrees with the OP. I don't like "evil" villains without any motivation than "kill, kill, KILL" (or plain egoism) for me it is not good storytelling. In Switzerland we say that only americans write such stories, because there everything is seen a bit more black and white (I think it is not entirely true though). I personally would plan it differently though, for example in the beginning you think the villain is exactly that "evil monster" that I don't like to play against and in the story you find out that he is somehow related to you, has quite similar goals or that you are the antagonist that killed all his family and friends during the campaign after all. Okay that is a bit simple, but I am not writing the story. It is easier in the beginning if you build up hate as an instrument to give you a drive to fight against something, but it is also important to show that an antagonist has a drive that usually is not "I want to do evil things" but maybe he thinks he helps the world with what he is doing. Many people think they are right and do something good by their actions even if we then classify their actions as "evil" from our point of view.

Yea, right. o.O Well hello to the black and white world of your imagination Of course there are other ways to write a romance, make it interesting and still allow you to ignore the NPC altogether or not showing any interest in that person. I think a romance does not have to influence the main plot at all, the romanced person does not have to change or have different opinions about everything just because she likes you as main character. Thanks for your comment. Now I don't feel so alone with my opinion.. I also do not understand this "yay, we won because you will not get what you wanted to see in the game and what we could have ignored anyway"-bashing. But then again, maybe we should let them have their victory like most others that voted for romances in other topics did. I understand of course that A. doesn't want to write them, if he does not know how to write them or has no fun writing them. I think his reach will be far, and I am not sure if we really can still hope for them if his view of them is so .. narrow (?). But then again I am sure he will write other "relationships" (friendhips, aversions, etc) with the companions that are worth exploring and just hope that in game he does still grant for the main character also has some say in it, where he wants those "relationships" to go and only limits those choices from the companions character view and not from the main character view just because he wouldn't like the main character to make some choices, he wouldn't choose..

Actually I was quite serious about that, but I didn't really expect anything other than pages of flaming schadenfreude (Especially from that blond guy up there!), so I guess I can still smile about it. @Brannart I was surprised about that too. But then again it is normal that we want the things we found in the games we liked most again, so hope or think A. wants that too. But well he is an individuum and if he made P:T all by himself it would have been a different game. I have played so many dungeons in my life that I am sick of them. Maybe I will not play any so when P:E comes out I can play them again with a smile :D

I think his answer gives a sad answer about himself, but of course if he doesn't understand that emotion, then he also isn't able to write about it. So yes, I took note. Don't really care for you guys rubbing it into the faces of people that wanted to see it in the game though. Seems like a sad and childish thing to do for me too ^^

So I see some people that want increasing stats over time. How about your companions? We can be quite sure that the same progression that applies for the main character will also appear for companions, or am I wrong (BG-system party, every companion will also level up)? So would you like to be able to change the stats of your companions, taking away character-specific weaknesses like low intelligence and thus making it harder to write dialogue for the companions? I think if we have strong companions there are only two possibilites a) you only increase stats of your main character and have different way of leveling up for ncps or b) you have fixed stats or only very small increases for all characters in the game.

Yea it is bad writing, I think we all agree. But I think we also agree on people here not being some children that just want to bang npcs. If you want that u play other games. And if there were any then they would be 2 years older already as soon as the game comes out and may have other preferences :D I still think it is something beautiful if a character can be created in a way that makes players want to connect with that person, build friendships that go deeper than just "work", wants to know more about them, their past and their visions and wants to support them. And then maybe with some characters a romance makes sense at some part, others will become best-buddies-in-arms or fight to keep their distance for some reason. I also think nobody wants easy relationships like in some games, of course we want the characters to struggle, maybe tragically fail or still have some moment of a happy-end at some point in the story just to let us sit here crying some hours later when we hold her dead body in our arms. I think there is no story-element that is able to induce so many emotions in players than companions that you are able to connect to are. In books and movies it doesn't work quite this way, because you are not acting yourself and in movies you usually don't have the time to really know people that well. I want one ticket for this dangerous emotional rollercoaster please, no, make that two! *still waiting for an official statement*

Same pool for all attributes like you said is hard to balance. Look at fallout and the gifted trait for example, it gave more SPECIAL stats and took away some points from skills and it was massivly overpowered so that everyone used it. To have options that give clear benefits for the player does take away the choice of them. Because almost everyone will use it. To leave it is like when you see a good armor on the floor, nobody thinks "nah, that is too good for me, I rather stay naked" and walk on. You will use it when you find it. I rather have a system that is easier to balance, so players have a real choice and have some points you can put in your stats and then they stay the same for the rest of the game. If they don't stay the same, then it is also hard to portrait the companions you have with you, because your stats often do define a lot of his character and if you can raise stats, then maybe you made your minsc very smart in the meantime and all his dialogues make no sense anymore.

I still think you have to watch at weapons from the fantasy-world itself. If people are bigger and stronger than in our middle-ages, then they will have bigger two-handers, right? Bigger twohanders are heavier, because there is more material on them, right? If they are heavier, then they get slower to fight with and less flexible in combat. So THEN the stereotype is more true to the fictional reality you created than our middle ages. I think that's how weapons should be created, born from the world they were developed for. And I would love to see innovation there. Secondly if u watch at the setting from a realistic perspective: wouldn't some weapons be clearly better than others? Where is the balancing? A game has to even out weapons in a way that they are distinct and have their own playstyle advantages and disadvantages (that are easy to understand or hidden in game-mechanics) and still not be much mightier than other weapons other players may have chosen. I think it is ok as an idea to implement different playing styles for weapons that are better against specific foes. But you pointed out yourself that some of the weapons are not made for some fightingstyles and would do less damage with it even if it would be better against some opponents. So even if such a system would be implemented, there would have to be a simplification, because you would have to reduce the realistic imbalances between weapons, you would have to reduce the type of damages you can deal (for example all weapons do damage with three kinds of different fightingstyles like blunt, piercing and slashing attack) and you would have to make a simple system of what damage type is effective against what foe (Even though in reality it doesn't only depend on foe-type). There is no way around simplification and changing realistic approaches for games and that is exactly where all the stereotypes come from, there is reality and physics in those stereotypes, it is just made understandable, balanced and fits in the setting. I am not saying "bring back the stereotypes we have seen 100 times because we know them", but I also cannot understand this huge aversion against it.

I like non-combat-skills that are specific for a class in games, so every class is different to play even outside of combat. But since they want to give us skillpoints that we can put into non-combat abilities, I guess that most skills will be available for every class (because there aren't that many useful non-combat skills in total). If this happens, then I would like to see classes having a small bonus in those skills that are for their class and also another bonus through the main ("SPECIAL")-skills this class needs more. So for example a rogue could have a bonus on lockpicking and also a bonus through high dex, what he also needs as rogue. Most non-combat skills have already been notedm but that would be my list: - Different speech skills: Persuade (Bonus for high Intelligence), Seducion (Charisma), Intimidate (Strength), for me they do not have to be noted in dialogue as those options. Shouldn't only be useful with the main character, but u should be able to chose who does the talking (!). - Lore (Wisdom/Intelligence): should give additional dialogue options and lets you identify items easier and faster. Identifying items imho should not always work with know nothing at all about this item/know every detail about it but also have a step in between for legendary items, where you have to find out what the item is able to do and what not. I tried to describe the idea in curses topic: http://forums.obsidi...es/page__st__20 - Herbalism (Wisdom): collecting and identifying herbs and berries and making potions out of them. - Hunting (Wisdom?): getting claws and teeth and pelt and all that off monsters - Crafting (Strength): collecting raw materials for weapons and making equipment out of them - Find traps, hidden doors, hidden treasure (Perception) - Wilderness:(Perception) avoid random worldmap encounters if there are any - Healing (Durability/Resistance): give some energy of your own soul to others to heal them? - Strong soul (Durability/Resistance): get more resistance against poison, curses, fatique, sickness and other conditions that affect you also outside of combat, so u can use unknown potions and items on that character - Lockpick (Dex) - Pickpocket (Dex) - Bargain (Charisma) - Sneak (Dex?) - Enchant (Intelligence)

Oh and I would really like to see a guy buying all the cursed weapons for his museum (well that is what he said it is for, in reality he is a masochist that just likes the curses - maybe you could find that out in dialogue with enough int while watching him suffer from all the curses he has to go through) :D Cursed weapons usually aren't worth a dime. But I am sure in a fantasyworld there are some people interested in them, even though maybe only weirdos and assassins mostly. Depends on the curse though. A ring that makes u ugly may be a curse to most but maybe a relief to someone who just wants the other gender to stay away, etc. Would make for some funny quests for sure.

I like cursed items. Especially if you don't know about the curse before it happens. BG was easy. It had a good story about any item and you knew it (and thus if the item is cursed) or you didn't know a thing about it but found out as soon as you did wear the thing. I would have nothing against it if in this game some rare/"legendary" items had a slightly different background color if you aren't completely sure about all the preferences an item has and the properties could be positive or negative and are only unlocked after some time using the item. In the discription for example there could be text like "..there have been some rumours about this shoes being bad luck.". You would know the curse as soon as it happens (or not, because rumours don't have to be true after all) and the discription and color of the item could update as soon as it is known. I don't know if others like it, but it would make people try more weapons and armor to unlock the full properties of this special items. The curse should be on the person, not the item, I agree. But I don't mind some items sticking, if others have other curses.

I agree with something HansKrSG said in other words: If you make a fantasygame, then realism comes from the world you created and not from our middle ages. So when you have people that are bigger than humans (orks, half-orks) and every fighter has the muscles of arnold schwarzenegger, then big swords can be handled efficiently even though they are very heavy. If you fight against hordes of stupid animals that stand around you and only attack you sometimes instead of just jumping you, throwing you to the ground and biting you until you are dead may also help with making sharp long two sided weapons you can swing even though it takes time. Of course very big swords weren't usual in our middle ages. Not only because of strength, but probably also because you have to carry them everywhere (what makes you tired even when not fighting) and I would suspect they hinder you while walking when you put them on your back and they are longer than the length from your head to your knees. On horseback they have to be even shorter I guess. Of course japanese style weapons (and hair colors!) aren't what I want to see in a game, but how Baldurs Gate did it was ok for me. Also I would like to visually see the difference between different weapon types. I like the ideas about one handed/two handed wielding and weapontypes giving more than just different damage numbers and speeds. But in the end the system has to be simple enough for me to understand what the weapon is doing and what the difference between two weapons are. Then I am happy. ^^

Well there were other games where fighters could try to bash open a lock or mages had a spell for opening locks. I have nothing against other classes opening locks as well if it comes at a cost and does not work with all locks (and thus building up lockpicking for the rogue does not get redundant). I think this is hard to balance though. I would very much like to see all classes having some non-combat advantages like lockpicking with the rogue. I always liked to play rogues in other games, because they usually have more non-combat-abilities than other classes (picking pockets, pick locks, sometimes seduction or speech-advantages), allowing you to see more of the game, get more loot and having more advantages in dialogues. I have nothing against that appearing here as well, so I know what class I will choose, but maybe it could also be better balanced between classes.

I think sex can be in the game and to completely exclude it in a "adult" game, may be strange, because I am sure it plays a role in all of our lifes. I think it should fit to the story and characters though, maybe for some this may be important, for other companions not at all. I don't see any need to make that in any way animated though, I think animations should be added to things, that are frequently used in the game. I don't need any graphic display of any sort or "pornographic" sounds in background, I am sure we will know what happened without that.

Exactly my thoughts. If it is worth it or not to include multiplayer in the game depends a lot on how the game works. A tactical game where u can control all options of your partymembers and have a lot of freedom in movement, multiplayer makes a lot more sense than in other RPGs where u are traveling without party most of the time or they have to hop behind you all the time and have no way of influencing the game at all. Because then you don't have to change the game if multiplayer is added. On the other hand I see that having lots of text in the game and many different ways of solving quests may be less optimal for multiplayer. I think in this game it makes sense to consider multiplayer. Especially because even though 40% is a minority, it is a big minority if you ask me and shows that there are a lot of people here that would play multiplayer. I would like it to be included in a future expansion pack and I would be a bit sad if it wouldn't be implemented at all.

I like it when there are parts of realism in games, so I usually like how weapons make different types of damage and you need different types of armor to be protected. On the other side this leads to a lot of micromanagement, so you need to carry with you several armors to be protected against the possible types of weapons others may have and I guess this will be not so much fun quite fast. I would like to see a system, where there is dodge as well (dex-based) and classes like the monk have high chance not to get hit at all. Armor should reduce dodge (you are less flexible - but it depends also on type of armor of course) but increase chances of you taking less damage when hit. The calculation of how much damage does not get through: depends on how the "hp" (I know it will not be called that in that game) are calculated, if they are done like in most other games with few more every level, then a combination of substraction and %-damage reduction is the best idea, I guess.

that is what I would like to see also, because I am curious how this project does on this topic compared to other games that (imho) had more "expensive" rewards. I don't need to know how much money goes into music, engine and all that and I would doubt that this numbers are open even in the company, because it gives an idea about what person earns how much.

Well if this topic only exists, because some people think they have to protect women from something, then pick 30 women and let them choose their RPG-outfit. Since most women quite like to look feminine and not like a man, maybe the result will be something more in the direction of "female formed"-platemail maybe it will be not, but if that is the problem, I am sure it will give results. Maybe there is some sort of compromise between both sides (like... in almost every other game) and maybe the green shirt girl can define that In RPGs girls and guys both do tend to wear armor that is not only practical but also estetic. Same counts for weapons, as many of the weapons featured in RPGs would not be practical against some armortypes or not be used in a setting were everyone wears some armor anyway (and fighting is not realistic anyway, because you shouldn't lose HP with every hit but only hit very rarely and then usually be quite wounded or dead already) or are misinterpreted like "morning star" being a ball on a chain. I don't mind as long as it looks good and is implemented nicely. And I like variety in weapons and also armor even if that means there may not be an alternative on every level for the armor I am wearing. But in the end the characters will be proabably less than 1 inch tall on screen. So just make it so I can still see if that is a woman at all there. Do a better job than with Imoen please :D http://img545.images...15/69693003.png

hmm not really. Gameplay is the ruleset on how you could interact in the game theoretically, the actual reactions you can chose from in specific situations and what consequences there are (that are written in the game), are storyelements. Or did I get that wrong?

Well I played both type of games and the impressions that do stick with me and make me nostalgic or want to play a game again are the ones that actually raised "real" emotion in me (well if something is funny, sad, scary or deep (what was the emotion called that I feel with that? I really don't know) etc.). For this to happen with me the story (well companions, situations, etc) has a more severe impact and it happens only rarely. Music has an impact too, I guess.