Umberlin

It's their call not mine. That's the perk of there being no publisher. They'll decide. That's all I need of them.

Words that are both singular and plural without adding an S onto the end.

I miss doing something a companion disagreed with and having them honestly get sick of my antics and leave. It told me who in my party really wanted to be there, and who honestly agreed with my methods. And that goes for any set of options. The things that would make Viconia leave were completely different than the things that might make Ajantis leave, as one example. That's another thing about being a leader, not just who is willing to follow you, and for what reasons, but why they'd stay under your command as well. In terms of why they'd join . . . look at KotOR 2 actually, your actions on Nar Shaddaa would effect which of two possible characters would come with you. If you combine ideas like, "Why they joined you in the first place" with "Why they stay" and "Why they might leave" I think it makes your role as a leader more convincing. Obviously, yes, earn it, they're there for a reason, and if you're not convincing and trustworthy by their then why would they join you/stay? Also such things make the role playing in the game more interesting, and have weight to them. The fact that you can point out examples in games where these things occured is also important, mostly because it shows that they're not only possible to implement, but that they've been implemented in the very style of game PE is pulling from.

I'm against a system built around cooldowns. I really can't stand systems that just leave me waiting on a little count down timer, for a bunch of reasons, one of the worst being it puts too much focus on the UI instead of on the game where it should be.

Huh, personally, I thought it looked more ridiculous than politically incorrect. I'm glad it's gone, but not for the reasons you're suggesting. In terms of how sexual a game game can be in some of its clothing? Honestly as long as conservative and middleground alternatives 'also' exist within the game, for everyone, so that no one is forced into it, I don't mind there also being skimpier clothing. It just shouldn't be the only thing there, and it definitly shouldn't be something a player is forced into using, for statistical reasons, if they dislike such things. However, I don't think of that picture as being skimpy or politically incorrect, as I said, it just looks ridiculous.

I'd prefer Magic items be rare, with the best of them having fairly minor enchantments. I'd want to have to work especially hard, and go through a lot, to think of earning even a minor magical item. They shouldn't be handed out like candy and . . . honestly, I never want to see an "Epic" magical item that the player can use. If anything I'd like it to tease you with one, just one, and then have an enemy take it, use it on you, and, even if you defeat them, have them cast it away someplace you can't get it to mess with the player. That said, minor is relative, and I love the idea of tracking down a storied item, and having to really work at it, through a bunch of twists and turns in story and gameplay to even have a shot at it. The better built up the story of the item along the way, the better. However, it shouldn't be something super powerful, no epic style weapons please . . . minor magical items can be just as interesting, especially if you don't have the, "Super flashy obscenely powerful sword of +5000 ugly art design" overshadowing them.

While we're on the subject I miss the uncontrolled summons you saw in some of the older games, and in some of the IE games. You needed to combo your spells, such as in the D&D games you'd have to protect yourself from evil to keep thing that came through the portal from just plain eating you. It was also interesting in its visuals especially but just as a general knowing something could come through, not even always the same something every time, that was completely out of your control. Your best form of control being, essentially, the 'please ignore me but not them' approach.

Still asking a that a game not take after aspects that the Developers have heavily suggested the game to take after . . . seems . . . as if it misses the point of exactly what PE is meant to be. A throw back for the people that did like such things, because, apparently, the Developers liked such things.

I didn't create the title. Skill trees come in more flavor and variety than what those to present, which was what I said earlier. I called the things you select multiple things, skills were but one of them, which do have limiters and requirements and even total lock outs depending on various factors ranging from class to level and so on. For example, just one example, only being able to raise a skill so much due to limitations put on you by level or class. I also mentioned feats as well as spells (and more). My point was very simple and easy to follow, that the limiters put on you by skill trees (say Diablo) are no more suffocating than the limiters put on you by a D&D like system (a sorcerer only being able to learn a limited number of spells total for example, or the Wizard who can learn more being limited in casts and by what they can foresee), or any other system, because the limiters need to be there. There are exceptions that do let you pick literally anything, say Skyrim, but . . . heh . . . your "This is a tactical game" really doesn't apply to games like that. If we're talking a game that actually requires a tactical approach, like a well run D&D game, then . . . you have limiters and lock outs all over the place. On skills. On feats. On spells. On what weapons you can use. On armor classes. On all sorts of things. Statistical requirements. Skill and feat and spell level requirements for a prestige class, and more. And so much more. The limiters are everywhere. Going back to this: 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' That does not apply to a tactical D&D like system where plenty of limiters rightly prevent 'free selection' of such things. Not that we even know what sort of system we'll be using yet, but if it is meant to be akin to the old IE games . . . expect limiters, because those are one of the many factors in such games that make you take a step back and think about what you're doing, plan, think tactically.

Creating a highly detailed character, getting in there and playing with the numbers and carcing out a background to give the character life are all highly important to me.

Mm, exactly, I'd much rather they react to the readily obvious. Race for example. Reacting to an action you've performed is another one.

To an extent, this is what a vancian [i've never heard it called that before, but that seems to be the term all the cool kids are using] magic system is there to prevent - your mage can cast invisibility if he has it prepared, but you thief can be stealthy at will. The mage has great power and versatility, tempered by moderation - if you prepare that transformation, that's one less fireball. If you cast it now, you can't cast it later today. You have great power at your disposal, but you need to be careful where/when/how you use it. That's why I like that kind of system, and I'm sad that it seems to be fairly unpopular even here, because going to something like a mana-based system means that either mages need to be nerfed to the point that they're far less fun to play, or they're so overpowered compared to the other classes that it's silly to pick anything else. I don't think I've ever played a game where the mage worked as well as in BG2 (not BG1 because you spend too much of the game so pathetic that you're almost useless, nor ToB where the mage really started to outstrip the other classes too much). This is fairly accurate. The Thief can stealth at will, the Wizard (under that system at least) has to prepare, and if he hasn't prepared it . . . he doesn't have it. That's one of the most intriguing things about a well played Wizard actually, the tactical approach and prior planning involved (unless a game does something silly like letting you just constantly rest rendering it entirely pointless :\ ).

I'm getting this sort of a vibe from your post: "There is only one type of Magic user, they're all evocation specialists that throw fireballs. Magic users specialized in Transmutation style magics, Illusion style magics, Enchantment style magics, Divinination style magics and many other styles of magical application do not exist, and never have existed, and because of the existence of one style of high damage magic user none of these other types should exist." Correct me if that was not the vibe you wished me to get. I'm not even for the idea particularly, I just think . . . there's something amiss in your view of magic users.

And that's why you won't be able 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' Just look at the oldschool games PE is pulling from. They all had limiters in terms of how you could acquire different skills, abilities and feats where applicable. I don't know where you got this from. Neither IE game had a Traps tree for thieves where you could buy spike/flame/magic traps for use or anything similar. Neither IE game? Are you under the impression there were only two? I'm sorry . . . but I think you must have either quoted me by accident, or seriously misread what I wrote. I'm not talking about some trap skill you pick out of a skill tree. I'm talking about abilities/skills/etc unlocked via leveling, that had requirements. For instance a Sorcerer wasn't ever going to learn and use Meteor Swarm at level 1, there were limiters and requirements. So unless you think all forms of limitated advancement in an RPG are a skill tree . . . I have no idea why you're acting like I was talking about a skill tree. You didn't have freely selectable skills abilities and feats. Some were more open than others, certainly, but many had small requirements while others had bigger ones or absolute limiters even in some cases. And that's why you won't have 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' Just look at the oldschool games PE is pulling from. They all had limiters in terms of how you could acquire different skills, abilities and feats where applicable. Let's look at that again: "And that's why you won't have 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' Just look at the oldschool games PE is pulling from. They all had limiters in terms of how you could acquire different skills, abilities and feats where applicable." Where there, exactly, do I suggest the old IE games had you going down a dungeon crawler style skill tree? Because I didn't. Nor did I mean to. Nor have I ever suggested I'd want that only point out in a devil's advocate manner that skill trees come in more types than was suggested in an earlier post. Which is true. Skill trees come in many types and how open or closed they are is purely a mark of the Developer's intent.

I suppose illusions or transformations, as spells, if regulated just right, that allows you to temporarily pass a some brand of NPC would, essentially, just be a stealth skill with a slight visual difference. The real issue would be in interacting with NPCs in this state, as, if they don't react right, it would seem off. As such whether something like this should be in, or not, seems like it would be best left to the question: "Is it practical given the time and resources alotted?" Obsidian are the only ones that can really answer that, so, whatever they decide on something like that is fine by me. If it can be worked in, and work right, great. If not, then oh well.

I like it overall, but my favorite aspect is the combination of the draping cloth with the plate. I like it when RPGs do things like that to give some extra armor personality. It's a good way to do so without going too far, and large cloth pieces that drape like that, tabards and the like, are also typically visual as we saw in BG2, which was helped by the fact that you could adjust the colors on such pieces to your liking. It was a good way of allowing for a little to 'stand out' visually for a perspective that typically makes it hard for some more intricate details to be seen.

100% agreed. Which is likely why endless barren desert simulator eternity was one of the first project code names shot down.

Could be fun.

You want the glaciers, snowy landscapes and mountains buried beneath the swamps and ancient forests?

Biomes unique to this RPG world not based on those of Earth, in addition to any Earth-like Biome's that may be wanted. As long as they're all done well and fit with the intended world.

I suppose it doesn't wholly apply, but there have been skill trees where the unlock is level based, and not 'you must have this many points spent in the tree' format, allowing you to take from multiple trees as long as you meet the level requirement (others used additional requirements besides, or opposed, to level such as statistical requirements or requirements of action/exploration that beg you've found or done something in particular to unlock a given skill). What you're describing sound like tiered skills, not trees, but fair enough. I still prefer freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.I don't even know how tiered/tree'd skills are supposed to work here. The games in question still described and presented them as trees, so that's the language I used. And that's why you won't be able 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' Just look at the oldschool games PE is pulling from. They all had limiters in terms of how you could acquire different skills, abilities and feats where applicable.

Why would I want the screen to shake? I hate those shaky cam styled movies for a reason.

I think Gothic II was the last game I played that started out difficult, and made you work for your experience, levels and abilities . . . but even that wasn't as well done as older games. For the above poster that mentioned DA:O I just can't agree, the game gave you very little reason to be tactical in my opinion. I'll admit it tried, but it paled terribly in comparison to the oldschool games that PE is supposed to be pulling from.

Conjuration type magic users always have so much potential that is never tapped. They're almost always turned into, 'the pet class' rather than what they're presented as, dealers and contractors. The applications go well, well beyond the, "I send an imp I summoned into combat' routine we're used to. Summoning creatures to sacrifice for crafting or enchanting styled purposes, summoning an entity to gain information on a subject or quest, perhaps the location of something related to the type of entity you've summoned and so on. The simple straightforward, 'throw a fire elemental at it' mentality of most implementations of conjuration styled magic just . . . are drab. Then again I suppose I should be happy that Conjuration is implemented at all. Good Transmutation styled magic users are near non-existent, they do exist nicely and well in PnP, but it's rare to find them well implemented, or implemented at all, in cRPGs. Good Transmutation, Illusion, Enchanting and Divination style magic users skills/classes in cRPGs just don't seem to happen often, and when they do . . . they don't seem to be implemented very well outside of the rare case.

Even the old cRPGs let you do this, it's not really anything new. Just look at Baldur's Gate, you could outright change the color of clothing and such.