Umberlin

Especially with DA:O to DA2 completely ignoring some choices. Or am I supposed to believe Leliana grew a new head between DA:O and DA2? Bleh.

At D&D v3.5, Druid characters rock; they have innumerable options, plenty of elemental-based spells, and they're not half bad at combat either. It's one of my favorite classes. It's not the abilities/capabilities. It's the themes.

Outside of the Wizard and Priest, the Cipher will probably be one of my other choices . . . I was never a Druid player. Maybe that'll change though. Hopefully the game will manage at least three play throughs to make exploring all of them enjoyable.

Just any IE game? Mass Haste . . . Iron Body . . . Black Barbed Shield . . . Suffocate . . . Contingency . . . Tenser's Transformation . . . Vocalize . . . Flesh to Stone . . . Disintegrate . . . Blink . . . Blacksphere . . . Haste . . . Slow . . . Balance in all Things . . . Knock . . . and so many other good ones, it's hard to choose. Hhmmm . . . I think I'd pick Gate, oddly, because ninth level Transmutation spells are so rare . . . there are good ones from several Schools but the implementation of Gate in BGII was just perfect. You get your creepy things coming out, the gate and the things look great and you need to prepare to use it by protecting yourself from Evil. Did I mention the extra planar creatures were just plain well done? I'm not usually a conjuration player but if more conjuration spells were handled that well (summon fiend/cacofiend had similar function actually) in cRPGs I'd likely play Conjuration for often. Gate. The best spell? Maybe not. Entertaining? Endlessly. Vipergout also had some splended imagery . . . even though I wasn't really one to use it much.

True. Also not a chance on the overly obsessive refreshing thing.

Good news then. I'm sure everyone looking forward to the two classes will still breathe easier when the Kickstarter counter actually reads the required number though.

Things you can actually see versus tiny details that you'd barely be able to see even if you can zoom? Unless they were using those tiny details in face portraits . . . I guess . . . but still, I think I'm not the only one that would just prefer oldschool painted portraits when it came to such things. Maybe I'm wrong, I obviously don't speak for everyone.

I prefer a slower save system with scant levels, that said, I do think you can do that 'and' make lower level tiers more interesting and complex in a well made system. I believe Obsidian will do what they think is best in the end, and that may not go to my preference, but, I am sure it can be done. While my preference is that there be a lower progression of levels . . . I would also note, aside from that lower levels can be made mechanically more interesting if well made, that in a slower progression system levels would need to mean more (a level up would give you a lot to think about, in other words). I notice a lot of modern MMORPGs have sped up the leveling system, but, they also seem to have made levels mean less in many cases . . . I think that can be just as harmful to the experience as a slow system that leaves you with a dull experience due to a lack of abilities and spells. There likely needs to be a carefully calculated balance regardless of whether you go slow, fast or somewhere in between. - All that said . . . leveling systems can be done many ways, and certainly done well in more than one of those ways.

they're actually funding it themselves, per feargus comments. and then they'll use the PE profits to help with it. Yes.

for what its worth, they aren't going to be sprites. But they did talk about portraits, which I think should make quite a few people happy.

I support a save anytime system. Now, "Does that mean I think they'll allow saves in the middle of battles or dialogues?" My answer would be, simply, "No." However, outside of a decision making process like an well written, branching, dialogue or a tactical battle . . . I do think you'll be able to save just about anywhere or anytime. I think to do otherwise will inconvenience people in a real way, with countless examples throughout everyday life of why truly limited save systems do not work. People have real lives. Real lives, even during your, "me" time, the time you put aside for yourself, for hobbies, for whatever . . . can be interrupted. In fact they 'will' get interrupted. By people. By weather. By technical difficulties. By power outages. By pets. By family. By friends. By the fact that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. And so much more. Limited saves don't make a game harder. Limited saves do not make up for the fact that some people are weak willed, and will try to exploit anything no matter what limitations are, or are not, in place. Limited saves do not make people legitimate players, as the legitimate players would have played legitimately regardless of the save system as they always have. Limited saves only inconvenience people, most especially the legitimate players, and interfere with the fact that, "Life is what happens while you're making other plans." People have real lives to deal with. Limitations within the game challenge you, can ensure you plan ahead and think tactically on your toes, but limiting saves does not result in challenge inside the game - it only results in tedium, and frustration, in reality where you have any number of real life occurences that clash with a limited save system. In the end I can't see an outcome where Obsidian uses a limited save system. Maybe I'm wrong in what they'll do, but I'll never feel I'm wrong in regards to my stance that limited save systems should, quite simply, not happen.

I find it a little odd that people wouldn't want more content down the line. Especially given their assurance that the money we're donating now is for the main game, not for any future expansions. In fact, if I understood them right, the money that will go toward expansions will be money they make from sales of the game we're funding now. Regardless I have a hard time finding any issue with the idea of oldschool, content packed, and legitimate expansions. That's a good thing. If they were hopping up and down going, "We're going to use the money you're donating to make and sell you horse armor down the line" . . . I could see the problem, but they aren't doing that.

there is nothing worse than the power going out before you can save. The first time me and my friend played through secret of mana the power went out during the fight with the final boss. so much rage Oh, situations like those . . . that's never fun. Sorry. :\

I like lots of well written text.

Honestly good voice work can raise up a game; while average, mediocre and even bad voice work can break a game entirely, in terms of the presentation of its story. At the end of the day . . . I've played completely text based games, with zero graphics, and enjoyed them more than some games with average or bad voice work, that were graphically superior . . . but superiority is a funny thing. Personally I can read a good book and find myself surrounded with the senses it creates of sight, smell, taste and so on - like a full motion video. Just like a good voice actor can bring writing to life, so too can good writing, all on its own, bring things to life. If the game is completely text based, no voice work at all, I'll be fine with it. If there's some voice work, and it's good I'll be fine too. However, I'll never be convinced anything needs voice work to be absolutely breath takingly wonderful. With the amount of money that can be involved in getting voice work . . . well . . . that's Obsidian's call. Not mine. Whatever they find practical within the limitations of their budget is just fine with me.

Well . . . something like that.

This, "an option exists so I have no choice but to use it, despite alternatives within the game that give me exactly what I want" mentality boggles me endlessly.

I played DA:O I thought it was terribly flawed, despite some interesting ideas here and there. It's tactical combat, and I laugh to call it that, was not one of their interesting ideas. Outside of the Origins, I don't know why people bring up the game. It did so many things so badly, or, even worse, in such a mediocre or forgetable way . . . I don't get it. Don't even mention the spell combinations, spell combos were not a new thing no matter their dippy marketing that bordered on lies. Spiritual successor to the BG series? What rubbish . . . DA2 was by far worse, but DA:O was just . . . shallow. Shallow customization. Shallow classes. Shallow skills and abilities. Choices that didn't matter a dull story that didn't even benefit from being original. Logan was the best thing about the story but it still managed to scoot around flat on its nose midway to nearly the end dear . . . whatever . . . why do people think this is something you want PE to be anything like? Why would you want to pull anything from this game when plenty of 'actually' good RPGs do it better? I can't believe I'm reading that people actually thought that was tactical . . . how . . . low our expectation of challenging gameplay in modern RPGs (most of which don't even deserve to be called RPGs) have sunk for 'that' to be considered tactical.

Hhmmm . . . I think as long as we get over 2.5 I'll be happy. The Cipher if well implemented could easily be a very interesting class, and I'd hate to lose it. Still the 2.4 goal has great implications that I wouldn't want to be without, I'm happy to see things in this state.

Happy to hear this being something you're actually thinking of to any extent.

No. I absolutely dislike the "save point" concept in games, even if you have multiple save slots for it instead of a single-save (urgh). Unless each save point is about 10 minutes apart, which to me says why have it in the first place then. I like being able to save anywhere, anytime. This is a single-player game and whether or not a player chooses to reload a game and lesson their "challenge" by doing so is up to them. From my perspective, this is one of those things where having the discipline to do or not do should remain tied to the player, not the game design. Agreed.

Learn basic self control. People that are going to play legitimately are going to play legitimately all on their own, no meddling required. If you aren't one of those people, that's on you. The save anytime feature is a given if you want to be friendly to the fact that people have real lives to deal with, even during their personal time they've set aside for a hobby, be it unexpectedly or otherwise.

And then the people you have issue with just save/quit and reload. Just implement a save anytime system and realize that some people will exploit that fact, and others won't. Do not complicate things. People who are going to play legitimately will play legitimately all on their own. No meddling required. Anything beyond that is, "None of your business, keep your nose out."

I always disliked the idea of epic items in general, to be honest. That super powerful "+100 sword of visual atrocity" that some people seem to crave just comes off as guady and pointless. Well storied minor magical items, that you really have to work toward, slowly uncovering bits and pieces or their story, possible locations and attributes - what they might look like - are far more interesting to me. Especially if getting the clues wrong could result in you picking up a wrong item, you found the wrong visual clues, so even with the right one in the same room you pick up the fake one that triggers a trap. A magical item should be rare, and a mystery, or, even if not lost, should involve much trial, and not simply combat. Trials of many types. Differing depending on the item in question, appropriate to their story, with their story slowly being uncovered through the people, dialogues, plotlines and clues 'potentially' leading to them. - What I especially do not want to see is the all too typical, "Hit the slot machine-I mean boss til' it's dead and recieve a reward from a random pool of items" style reward system because . . . that's always been absurd.