Umberlin

I mentioned before that I have no interest in seeing Epic styled weapons at all. - I prefer minor magical weapons being the high point, and being rare with no 'guarantee' you'll get them. I don't want it to be given that if you defeat a big boss that you'll get a magical weapon or armor peice. I don't want the combat to be the focus like that. This is an RPG, make it that. Make the twists, turns, challenges, riddles, discoveries and all the trials put in front of you be made up of far more than just, "Defeat the boss and get a chance for one of several purple drop." That's . . . not engaging. That's not an RPG. That's a slot machine that you have to kill. I don't want the, "Magical Sword of +50 Tacky Visual Design" being the end all result of overcoming the various trials in front of the character. Magical weapons should be minor, and rare in my mind. I'd rather have a magical item, of any sort, be the result of a storied experience, and a challenging experience. The story shouldn't 'just' be plastered on the item, it should be something you uncover, and earn . . . a thing you get to know more about slowly as you go. As you overcome varying trials that do not have to be about combat at all, they can, but don't make it about that. Not a random magical weapon. Not an 'epic' and idiotic looking weapon. A storied weapon that you've gotten to know much like you'd get to know an interesting character. Interesting is the key there, an interesting story that intriguing and engages the player, that draws them through various trials as the story unfolds/is revealed. And then there's a mystery. Solving a mystery and uncovering something lost is a wonderful staple of a lost artifact. For me that's what a magical item should be . . . interesting. Made out to be as deep and interesting as a well developed companion character.

Some may not like the idea, and not like me for bringing it up, but I actually would prefer a QfG III: Wages of War styled world map. It still keeps the locations as per BG1/2 maps, but requires actual movement through the world map, rather than a click. The reasons for my preference of this may not seem clear, because the system is essentially the same, just with you moving your character toward the area you wish to go. The reasons I bring it up are three fold: 1. Random Encounters as you move, and not necessarily combat encounters. In fact I'm rather against random combat encounters. I mean random encounters of things not highlighted as hot spots on the map (a town is a hot spot, for example). This could be an NPC that moves throughout the world or any number of things, QfG used it in several different ways besides combat. 2. Hidden hot spots, again, a hot spot is an area like a town or well known objective. Hidden hot spots are fixed, not random, locations (and encounters - again not necessarily combat) hidden on the map. This movement throughout the map can help act as a way of uncovering more than is at first available. Things off the beaten paths or side objects, things you don't need to come across, for main plotline purposes, but might want to so you explore. 3. The passage of time as you travel. In another someone mentioned that, "I arrive and I'm dead tired because apparently my character doesn't know how to rest along the way" . . . well in Quest for Glory III your character used up stamina and could get tired if he was up for too long. He'd tell you as he was getting more sleepy or worn out. As you travelled the world map you could stop and make camp. You had to set up a camp yourself, set up a firepit and light the fire, as a way of warding off anything that might bother you while you slept. This is an essential solution to that problem of your character arriving at a point dead tired as if he had no ability to stop and rest along the way. Not that it matters I suppose, there wasn't really anything I disliked about the BG/BG2 styled maps. I just think this manner could have some positive perks.

I tend to look at that as a good thing, to me, and it's probably the D&D influence that makes me think like that, bu, a Wizard without a spell book, to me, isn't a Wizard. It's a Sorcerer. I like the heavy focus on the grimoire. That's a bit of personal bias, mind you. A Wizard, in whatever setting, is whatever the setting requires it to be. This particular setting and its grimoire focus just happen to go along with my preference.

On the whole? Better left to those with more knowledge of what exactly is being made, and what fits that . . . however, I will say this: "What you choose, and what is said, should be 100% accurate to one another." There should be no, little four word dialogue options that result in yoru character spouting a half paragraph. If they're going to spout that paragraph I want to know exactly what they're going to say ahead of time. In other words the dialogue selections should reflect the resulting dialogue that's to be spoken.

You know if I were ever to make my own fantasy setting, I'd just make up random words for the classes just so avoid some of the prior conceptions, or realistic conceptions, of what they should be based off of X or Y or Z and all that. These class discussions have all brought me to that conclussion. The Priest in this setting isn't . . . a real Priest, or a Priest from another fictional setting (game/book/movie whatever). It's a Priest as dictated by this setting and its internal logic. Not the logic of reality, or the logic of another setting, and thus need not conform to them in part or at all.

Isometric. A game in the style of IE games in anything but an isometric viewpoint would seem wrong anyways.

Not accurate at all, actually. That said it did show fights involving spears could be made to look just as visually interesting, if not more, than more used sword fights. That said the real nice thing about Troy was the armor design. The costuming work for the armor, not accurate (at all), but very, very pretty. Personally while Troy was generally trash as a film (simply because it claimed to try to be historically accurate, which was . . . nonsense), when it comes to a high fantasy styled game . . . I'm not exactly looking for an accurate word for word historical document, I'm looking for a high fantasy game. Troy with the same fighting styles, armor styles and the like, applied to a fully fantasy based film, with an appropriate story, without the crutch of having to be historically accurate . . . could have, potentially, been a better film. Also Brad Pitt wore a leather skirt surprisingly well.

I agree (and I'm not suggesting you meant that), as long as they have to think about what they're doing, tactically, or suffer horribly. Mind you I have the same view of combat when you have a full party so it's just a matter of wanting the challenges presented by the game to, in general, force you into using your brain instead of, "Walk in and win" which far, far too modern 'supposed' RPGs do. Which is why I brought that up, not because I thought you meant that, but because modern RPGs seem to think anything actually interesting or challenging, that requires use of the brain, might . . . you know . . . scare away the frothing masses of people that want to press a button, resulting in a cutscene of them doing cool stuff, and win. I'm exaggerating the frothing masses thing. Slightly. Also frothing is just such a fun word to say . . . I just really wanted to use it. Frothing. Heh.

I'm actually fine with them as Priests, though I am curious how much distinction there will be/can be between two different priests presuming different faiths. It'd be interesting to see divine magic from different faiths be significantly different . . . but that's probably asking to much. Perhaps a simple creation of the base effect resources in a grayscale, so that you could more easily apply different thematic colors to represent faiths somehow . . . still that could easily get tacky. Something to think about I suppose.

It makes sense, really, especially if it's a matter of progression. "My low tier spells start off challenging, but eventually they get to the point I realize they're trivial. However, my better spells, in higher ranges, are just so taxing that they are always going to be limited through some means." In that sense I agree lower tier spells should start out limited and, progressively, over time, become less limited. I don't believe they should be that way at a base though, unless there's a progression within the spells that makes those lower tier spells, at lower levels, limited in a way beyond the extent of their use. It is important that a class you decide on feel viable on its own, to an extent. Though I'd also note I prefer such viability come from tactical approach, and not just at a base as, "I walk into a room and flatten everything" doesn't do much for me, or, I assume, most people that want a challenging game.

D&D styled feats required for armor brand of mechanics you mean? I can see that, especially if well implemented - there being a real choice there. Truly better one front, or another, but not both. I like it when games make me think about what I want to take, and why.

Everyone can't. Not all souls are equal. Not all people are equal. Obsidian outlined this already. Why are you acting like there's never been an RPG with a Monk styled class in it before? Why are you acting like a Monk styled class wouldn't have gear? Monk styled classes, mixed in with Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric etc styled clases . . . this has happened before, in far, far more than one game. This is not some impossible alien undertaking requiring logic that only divinity my glean a hint of. Your issues with the addition of a Monk styled class seem to come from your personal conjuration of problems that no longer exist, a result of many developers having tackled them succesfully over the course of quite a few different RPGs with such a class mixed in with other class types.

I'm not really a fan of trash encounters in general. I think a good developer can do better than that. Even those times when it can make an amount of sense I feel like a better, hand crafted, encounter would be the better choice in all ways but the time/effort involved - which would obviously be greater.

I remember being excited, the claimed it a spiritual successor to the BG series . . . and it wasn't. It wasn't at all, in any way. It's not a completely failure, like DA2, mind you, but after the 'Origins' part of the game . . . it took a nose dive. There were still things to like after that point, but they seemed far and few between. Even on the harder settings that some claimed were more tactical and challenge all I could think was, "Really? Is this what we consider tactical and challenging now?" It wasn't either one. Character customization, classes, abilities and general forms of progression were all very shallow, progression in general felt 'too fast' and a lot of 'something for nothing' that made progression often feel meaningless. Sure, characters like Logan had redeeming value, but there were far too many that didn't. And, for all their claim of impact many decisions just didn't have long lasting impact. Not to mention that some decisions you made were completely dropped for the sequel, and they acted as if they never happened (even if you imported your game) like a certain beheaded redhead I could name. So many choices weren't choices at all within the game though that it's hard to pick out just one. It was horribly, horribly, linear as well with what little side tracking you could do seeming hollow, empty - devoid of effort. The spell combos were neat, I guess, but I've played games with spell combos prior. It didn't wow me like some of you I guess. The camp site was a nice touch, but it made no sense if you picked up an add on that gave you an entire fort that . . . you could earn, clear out and make your own . . . and then have it completely and utterly ignored (side things that seemed hollow, empty - devoid of effort). I don't like cutscenes. I don't want to watch something cool. I want to do the cool things. I especially hate the cutscenes that completely dismiss what you were doing. DA:O isn't even the only one that did stuff like this, take the Witcher 2 when you play the portion where you duel as the prince. That nonsense where you can completely whip your compeition, and then the cutscene comes in after you defeat him that makes it look like you were getting completely steam rolled by a much better fighter. DA:O did that sort of stuff all the time. It's annoying and I hate it. Also . . . the main plot with the grey wardens and the dark spawn and all that nonse. I disliked it. I really disliked it. I have played that general plotline so . . . many . . . times I was sick of it prior to ever coming across DA:O. That in addition to the shallow character creation, far too limited classes, overly limited and simple/uninspired abilities and more just left me going . . . "Why?" And the answer, of course, is, "Money." There seemed to be hints of a soul, a heart within DA:O now and then . . . but for the most part . . . it felt like a hollow, dull game devoid of any heart or soul.

I prefer it be the high fantasy game that it is. I don't need it to replicate the medieval period, or any historical period, accurately in any way. I'd just like it to be a well fleshed out world, that makes sense within its own logical construct - not within a realistic construct.

Let me not rephrase: ". . . gray, foggy choices that challenge morality are not the same thing as meaningless/fake choices that have no effect, or whose effect is just the same as another choice." We're talking Obsidian. People from Black Isle. People from Troika. And beyond. Obsidian alone have created some of the most compelling gray area in games out there. Still, if this is what you believe: Then there are a grand portion of very shallow games out there with the typical, eyerolling, "Pet the puppy" or "Murder the puppy's entire family" style choices out there for you.

Deadly strings style is no match for cranky old woman kept up by noisy neighbors style.

Here's a couple questions: Why use the typical gold/silver/copper model or the just gold model at all? Why not use a trade system or another currency format? Lots of things to try outside the usual.

'Cannot' being significantly different than 'stripped of' . . .

I'm torn. On my first few times through I was in love with it . . . but after awhile . . . it wore on me. It's really hard to sort my feelings on it. I wouldn't ever want to lose that first impression though, it's really stuck over the years. I can understand the want for there being a sort of skip function, for an area like that, unlocked after fully playing through the area with at least one character. Still, I don't know that I'd consider it needed if a good mod community starts up and has some support. Meh, I'll just stick with: "I'm torn on exactly what I think."

Funny, I found the visuals and the combat gameplay in ToEE to be my favorite out of all of them mentioned. It was only the story, characters, dialogue and the like that I prefered in some of the other mentioned games. For all its bugs I felt like ToEE was quite solid visually. As for the gameplay note, they all had things to offer, when I say I prefered ToEE it was just a general, it wasn't perfect and had things that could have been brought in from elsehwere . . . but visuals? For an isometric styled game I couldn't have asked for better at the time of its release. I'm just a big ToEE fan though.

I think the issue there is with 'trash' fights in general . . . it's a plague on real time or turn based or any type of gameplay.

The radius would need to be sensible. Most games I've seen it in seemed to be under the impression that every single character ever was incredibly near sighted.

That's interesting in its own way though.

I think I always prefered a well done turn based system, simply because it lends itself more, in my mind to real RPG mechanics. An RPG, in my mind, should never be about player skill like twitch, reflex. They should have input like, "you go here" or "you say this" but all their decisions, in my mind, should be a result of what their character would do, what their character 'statistically' can do. A turn based system with tile based movement, where a character can only move as their stats and mobility allow is a superior RPG system in my mind. A player moving their character around freely, in my mind, defies the limitations of a character's statistics. It's not about whatt you do, in an RPG, in my mind, it's about what the character can do. A turn based system that forcefully limits you to what a character can do is my preference. That said . . . a real time system can work too. You can limit that by statistics, as a developer, if you really want to. You can axe out player input like reflex, if you really want to. It's just most developers don't do that very well, or fully, or, in some cases, at all. I know it can be done well. There are some examples. And I know Obsidian are definitly going real time with pause, which a good way to go in my opinion, but I definitly wouldn't shed a tear if they dropped that and went full turn based tile combat that's fully limited, in every way, by characters and what they 'can' do statistically . . . not what the player can do. Like I said though, the system Obsidian are going with can work just fine too. I see no loss in the real time mode as long as it's done well.