Umberlin

Is . . . that video supposed to be your idea of what looks good? Because it looks absolutely vile, to a truly ungodly extent . . . all of the characters, but especially the female characters, it's just revolting. Why . . . would you ever want that? In anything? Ever? It's example of good detailed and animated 3d models. Good? Detailed? They look like . . . oddly deformed clay figurines . . . I'm sorry I'll take Planescape: Torment's graphical style for its characters and creatures . . . any day over rubbish like that. I have no idea what you think looks good in the video but I don't see it. I wouldn't ask for. And a game would have to be amazingly good to get me to look past graphics like those. They're just revolting looking. 3D can be done well, I'm sure . . . but this game does not require the sort of nonsense seen in that video. I'll take DS3 style low quality models over that even, especially in an isometric game since I doubt I'll be needing to count the amount of hairs on a character's forearm in P:E. I am so glad Obsidian are getting away from nonsense like this that modern games keep producing. Trust me, what makes them revolting has nothing to do with ideas of beautiful or ugly.

It's almost like PE pulls heavily from past games in all of its class selections, with a slight twist here and there. Which has been obvious from the very first class announcements. You do realize we don't know very much about armor in this game right? There's been a lot of discussion about the Wizard, for instance. The Wizard can wear armor. Oddly the D&D Wizard could too . . . at a cost. You see we don't know if wearing armor/certain weapons includes a penalty of some form yet. If they do, you may well see your cloth wearing Wizard right along side the obviously cloth wearing Monk from the art. Even without a penalty we may see classes in light or no armor for particular builds, we simply do not know yet. Given there are obviously light armor forms in the game, from what we've seen, there are obviously going to be classes that wear them, or that simply may choose to wear them for particular builds. So a class that draws upon mystical inner energies, that's right in there with other classes that draw upon mystical inner energies, to create magical effects with which to defend themselves, or attack others undermines . . . the other classes that draw upon mystical inner energies . . . to create magical effects with which to defend themselves, or attack others. Got it. Noted. Wait . . . wait . . . let me get this straight . . . you think that something in a fictional high fantasy land, involving fictional high fantasy classes several of which use fictional, magical high fantasy abilities to accomplish their goals . . . is obviously meant to pander to people that like magical high fantasy elements? From what little we know . . . the Priest gets awful close to what you're asking already. I can see why they wouldn't want to retread that well trodden ground. Honestly what you're asking for, even barring the Priest, isn't exactly original. It's well tread in Western games. The chain mail wearing, blunt instrument weilding, shield bearing, learned, bookish, holy man is . . . not a new concept. Not that this will change your mind. Everything from forum posters, to Obsidian's write ups themselves, have justified how a person can do what the Monk does in this setting. It was obvious from day one that it was possible for a Monk styled class to exist, as pulling upon inner spiritual energies to create magical effects, heal, or enhance the body is quite in like with the idea of a Monk. Making the Monk as it exists quite proper for this setting. Again, the Monk sounds like a touch ranged mage who became physically fit, quick and strong in order to get close fast and unleash their touch range magics. The idea of encasing your fist in magical energies, and using it to harm an enemy, sounds a lot like several touch range Wizard spells. A class that uses magic in this way is hardly out of place in a setting where several classes use magic in their own unique ways. But that's been explained to you. And every time you post you act like even Obsidian's own lore write ups don't exist, let alone the explanations for how a Monk might work given the lore we've been provided in combination with the art provided.

Is . . . that video supposed to be your idea of what looks good? Because it looks absolutely vile, to a truly ungodly extent . . . all of the characters, but especially the female characters, it's just revolting. Why . . . would you ever want that? In anything? Ever?

Well you can have nations/cities centered on a racial group or two, and then cities/nations centered on a more diverse set of racial groupings. It's not far fetched for any setting, be it non-fiction or fiction, for there to be some places that are just more multicultural by nature. Trade cities that act as a merchantile mecca for instance. The original Guild Wars is probably one of the few you'll get close to that in. They were always hailed for the lands and peoples of Cantha and Elona being well done fantasy twists of existing racial groups, though more in concept than in execution as everyone was still audibly speaking English, for the most part (unless you changed language settings, obviously, but I mean within the game context). So while it may not have gone into ideas like, "language differences and cultural differences resulting in a loss in translation" there was a still an obvious effort made to keep things well done outside of Ascalon (the more western grounded fantasy kingdom and its Ascalonian people).

I tend to mention the Quest for Glory systems a lot when it comes to these threads, even though they use a mana system that . . . I'm not usually fond of in most cases. Yet, in Quest for Glory, as a series, it typically worked. Here's why: "Individual spells were a solution to different problems." You see, when I bring up Quest for Glory, in regard to RPG mechanics, people typically remind me that it's also an adventure/puzzle game. You had to solve things. And that's true. You did have to solve things, especially major encounters. Different classes solved them in different ways and your Magic User, who later upgrades to full fledged Wizard, is no different. His spells are solutions to different brands of encounter. Now that's a basis, I wouldn't want an exact copy of that situation, but take from that, and then move beyond it to this: At first you have limited spells types, say a firebolt a blinding spell and a spell to reflect direct magical attacks. You come up against a magic user you use the reversal spell. You come up against a lone target you use the firebolt spell. You come up against a group of enemies you can't possibly beat alone, so you use the blinding spell and run away. Now, later, you're more powerful, you have a spell that can pul a mas sof enemies to sleep for an extended period and a giant meteor spell that could kill that entire group. Yay! Right? Right? No. Because it's a solution to a problem, but not every problem. For example a situation where you need to get into a place, and a large amount of guards are blocking your way. Do you use the meteor to kill them all? Well, you could. But then more come. In a mana system you can just do it again, and choice becomes a moot point, continuing to kill everything with a meteor as it becomes alerted by the noise. In a well made game, that meteor won't come up again for that encounter, to prevent you from just using it again and again and again and again. So you have to think logically, tactically. So what happens? You use the calming spell that puts the guards to sleep. Your spells are solutions to different problems you face. A transformation spell that lets you take the form of a touched being for an amount of time. A spell that wipes memory. A spell that levitates your character. All just random examples that have nothing to do with PE, but they're each solutions to a problem . . . and good game design will craft a series of problems that make you use different spells in specific situations to progress. Take Quest for Glory III, Wages of War, for example. You were in a magical duel if you were a Wizard, with a Shaman. The Shaman and you may use any spell in your repertoire, but you may each only use them once or you're disqualified from the duel. There are other rules, like you can't directly harm your opponent - no casting a firebolt or meteor right at the opponent for instance (though there was no meteor spell I just made that up). The first round you go first. You could start with anything, right? However, the people around you are impressed by magic, they're a magical people, and they respect magical power. Your first move, if you make the correct move, is to summon your magical staff as a sign of your power. The Shaman then summons his staff in response. A show of power and the judge weighs the power of your staff and the Shaman's staff. The second round the Shaman apparently cheats, but, because you are new to these people, and they don't like you, they don't call the Shaman out on it. He'll directly attack you with a spell. A smart magic user in quest for glory puts up one of two spells first, their staff and their spell of reversal. If you won the round with the magical staff you go first and can cast reversal. The Shaman then sends a fire spell at you, but thanks to your reversal it backfires and flies at the Shaman. The third round the Shaman must counter his own spell, he's on the defensive, so he redirects his own spell and transforms it into a fire that surrounds you. This is considered an indirect spell in QfG so he's not cheating, since an indirect offensive spell is not a direct attack against you. You can counter this by casting calm, as the calm spell doesn't simply calm a person or creature, it's not a biological spell, it calms things around you - even fire, wind, anything in theory if you have enough skill. Now on the offensive again the Shaman surrounds you an a cage of branches and thorns. You have options here, you could cast force bolt and blow it open, for instance. However you have a spell to open that which is closed, an Open spell. You can use that to undo the spell. Still on the offensive the Shaman creates a darkness. You have two spells to create light, Dazzle (a spell that can also blind or disrupt illusions) and Juggling Lights which creates a more lasting light. Both are an option here, and both will undo the darkness. The Shaman summons an illusionary snake to strike at you. The snake can actually be dispelled with your Dazzle spell. In frustration the Shaman opens a portal beneath you that descends into darkness. You have a spell to levitate in place and move up or down. Now fully frustrated, and still not respecting you or the rules, the Shaman summons a Demon into his body that takes over, making him strong and vicious - it attacks. You can let him die to the magical attacks of the village chief behind the Shaman or you can dispel the Demon's possession with a dispel potion (which you could have put together prior, or not) which will result in the Shaman either living or dying. You could of course help the Chief kill the Demon too. Each spell a potential solution, some with more than one use, and branching problems that may make an earlier decision, that seemed right, be wrong leaving another spell better saved and used later. This was just one instance, these spells were not made specifically to be used in this circumstance and never again. Rather every problem in the game was made with the note of these spells in mind. The game then challenged you to use them intelligently, in different ways. And not just in these ways, but throughout the various games in the series. In my mind a good magic system will challenge you to use spells as solutions to problems, rather than as something you just spam over and over again to win. QfG as a series actually had plenty of flaws, but the spells as solutions mechanics to certain encounters always had a true ring to it, in my mind. Especially when spells have more than use use (Dazzle blinding a person, lighting a room quickly and dispelling minor illusions). You could also combine spells to create effects like making an object brittle enough to shatter. Systems that make encounters, especially major encounters, a series of problems that you must use the tools at your disposal intelligently to solve. See, this didn't just apply to magic, each class had, in many cases, the same problems to solve, but with different solutions entirely depending on whether they were Fighter, Paladin, Thief or Wizard. Having to use your skills intelligently, and not just spam them constantly . . . as a result of my childhood having such games in it, is very important to me.

At the end of the day the fighting style is a pretty moot point. They could be using nothing but a western boxing style and it still wouldn't matter. The damage isn't from their fist, it's from the magic encasing their fists. The fighting style and clothing style fit as long as Obsidian make them fit in the lore, whatever those choices of style might be. The damage dealing components still seems to be their ability to draw on their soul to enhance their bodies and create magical effects like the glowing fists which are obviously a measure of offensive nature. From looking at the visuals alone . . . obviously we can only know so much but the concepts behind an offensive magical field surrounding your fist is right in line with the idea of touch based spells, only here we see a class that essentially specializing in touch ranged spells and has worked on their physical prowess, as a martial art, if you will, in order to ensure that they get in range. It would also explain the idea of enhancing their bodies, magically, in other ways. For more speed or more durability or to emmitt a short range defensive field. I wouldn't look at the Monk in the art any differently than as a Wizard casting a spell, with the exception that he has to touch you for it to go off (unless they allow the Monk to hand long ranged abilities, which some Monk style classes in some RPGs have had). Anything more remains to be seen obviously.

I'd want a Caster concentrated around weird, Eldritch and Transmutation style spells. If I were to ask for another. I don't need another. However, if I could push for something it would be toward a magic user that dealt with the rarer, weirder magics of the world - note, by this I do not mean dark or evil or any such thing. The transmutation/weirder magics, even when you have entire schools dedicated to them in something like D&D . . . seem to get ignored and passed over so often. Some of the comments I've seen on the Wizard make me doubt they'll really delve into such magics . . . so, yeah, I'd push for that.

NWN is funny series, its original OC was more of a tech demo to show off the toolset, than an actual game. It's important to remember NWN1 was a Bioware effort. Not many people got that. People were supposed to use the toolset to run games of their own, DM style, for other players. SoU and HotU were more along the lines of actual games, with HotU being the superior of the two, in my mind at least (though SoU had its moments). Actually the gem of NWN1 was Darkness Over Daggerford, which was just plain wonderful in every possible way. NWN2 was an Obsidian effort, rather than a Bioware effort. NWN2 suffered, at first, in a similar way. NWN2's original campaign was . . . not Obsidian at their best, though, I would maintain that it was still enjoyable in its own right, and that it was a much better effort than NWN1's original campaign. Mask of the Betrayer was absolutely stunning. I know Mask of the Betrayer is a big favorite, and for very good reason, but I'll be honest . . . there were aspects of Storm of Zehir that I adored, absolutely adored. As much as I loved MotB, it's SoZ that I've gone back to play far more. I do think MotB had the stronger story and character elements though, so that's not a hit against the strong points of MotB, because it had plenty of very strong points.

I think the note about the difficulty of the design is one of the most important points, Not saying it's impossible. We've seen semi-implementations of some of these elements to one extent or another, on their own, or in various combination, in a few games . . . but only to an extent and with . . . mixed results/reactions. It's also a pointed thing, players do oft use their companions like you outline - paper dolls. I really don't know how a system, where the companions really were more of their own person, would come off to the majority. It's an interesting set of ideas but in terms of player acceptance and viability, as well as practically within time, money and manpower/effort constraints? I think I said it before, it just doesn't seem likely, regardless of how amusing it might sound in my head. The image of a player's face as a formerly trusted companion knocks them over the head, steals everything of value, and runs off with the player character's love interest . . . is still very amusing though.

You could always call it The-Same-But-Different.

Or where the morals are questionable, a good, well written, set of gray choices should leave you stumbling around in the fog grasping for a solution, recieving thin air as the foreseeable consequences of the choices you do find challenge your/your character's morality. They should make you think, leave you questioning and struggling to untangle them to find the one you can live with (what you can live with being subjective to your individual morality), in the midst of the fire and frying pan, so to speak. For that matter the consequences, foreseeable as you might think, still may not unfold in the longrun as you foresee in the short term and so on. Should every single choice be like that? No. For one it'd be silly. For another it would dilute honest to goodness bits of writing gold if everything were along the same lines.

Heh. True enough.

I'm just trying to imagine the general player reaction the first time a companion pushes them out of the way, takes their share of the gold, and claims an item with a simple, "I'm the only one in the party that can use it" excuse. It could even be funny, especially if such actions were accurately dictated by character personality. Still . . . I could see problems, and I could see players pulling their hair out. Personally just imagining the player reactions to such a situation is amusing enough to make popcorn. Probably won't happen though, not entirely sure it should, but it is funny to think about.

They're in, so it's a moot point now . . . albeit the Bard, or Chanter, of the two (while both have their own twist) seems much changed from versions talked fondly of, by some, in this thread. Centered AoE reminds me 'somewhat' of DAoC's Reaver class that was built around several PBAoE mechanics, though they did have other options besides.

You're right. I will submit to the fact that part of my up front dislike of the game comes from its claim to be a successor to something once held dear, and delivering anything but said claim. That dislike, however, wouldn't make its various, very real, issues outside of that anything but what they were. So, while I concur, I'm not convinced that I'd have viewed it as fine had they not created those circumstances.

The issue is that, in terms of compromise (different players want different things), if there is to be only one method of saving ... then, while self-discipline isn't something we always have a lot of, all the time, it is definitely a player option to exercise it...whereas no multiple saves etc. creates a distinct lack of option. So while you're not getting what you specifically feel you need, it is, imo, the best way to handle it. The game designers are not responsible for individual's lack of gameplay self-discipline any more than an author is responsible for an individual's inability to not read the last page of the book first. Quite so, I concur.

. . . There are games, actual tactically challenging games, that this game can actually pull from and Obsidian have already named such games themselves. Why would anyone here want to look to DA:O for anything . . . literally anything? Especially when it comes to the subject matter of this thread? DA:O and DA2 are prime examples of how dumbed down and simplified every aspect of modern RPGs are becoming. Why would you look to that when trying to make a better game, especially a game pulling from the RPGs Obsidian has mentioned? The little good there was has been done better in other games, mostly older games. That's not something I'd glad of. It actually makes me quite sad, and it certainly doesn't make me feel that I, and others who share my opinion, are somehow better than those who do not.

I'd hate to have to decide the visual identity of a game via art style . . . there are so many great artists out there: And so many more out there besides the few I can post here, all with touches large and small worthy of respect and use. Way too hard for someone like me to decide. I'd want to use them all and smash them all together. It would be a disaster.

I rather like these, they remind me of the old Dragonlance art, and BG1/2 portraits . . . in a way, not as an exact. Not in content as much as 'some' portions of the style in sense of the brightness involved. They're more open less cluttered. Very clear about what they're depicting. Not a lot of mess or distraction from the core. I guess I'd speak to the difference as being, "posed fantasy art" versus, "something depicting action" in the other two. I like the other two just fine as well though. This . . . however, I really dislike. I recognize the talent involved but it stinks of giant shoulder pads, giant weapons, over the top weapons and armor giant everything epic everything blah blah blah mentalities that I can't stand in modern RPGs.

that's because they are packaging all the stuff you hated about D&D Bards into the 3M stretch goal class. Or maybe the main villain Now that would be something to see.

I liked my Hagspawn sidekick. Gann and Safiya were favorites in general. Kaelyn had her moments I guess. I wasn't an Okku fan myself, and the choice between Okku and One of Many wasn't all that interesting to me, if felt a little polarized. Mostly if Safiya and Gann had been my only party members the whole game, I wouldn't have blinked an eye, they were the best by my measure. One of Many felt like the more intriguing character, between it and Okku, even if I don't tend to play to that side.

I note the supposed Bard is as far away from all the things that annoyed me about D&D Bards. Chanter is just a better name in general. The outcome feels much better than if they'd just caved and gone, "Okay here's your Bard."

"Leave me alone Demon Lord, or by all that is mighty and proud I shall write a scathing review of your dungeon and slander your name in a manuscript that some may dub pure character assassination!"

I know from experience that the console being active, or available through some means, can be a real boon to modders and people trying to implement a mod or certain mod elements.

Reminds me of Abyssal Fury, "You die!" . . . "and on the off chance you did not die, you now wish you had."