Umberlin

I thought the Deep Roads actually worked pretty well in the context of the game. They were supposed to be a miserable place and an expedition through them should feel like a long and highly unpleasant affair. I think it can be good game design to create an area that makes a player feel worn out and impatient to get it over with, if that's what the character is supposed to feel while traversing through it. Obviously that has to be done very carefully, but I though the Deep Roads pulled it off. However, by no stretch of the imagination can they be considered a mega dungeon. Unpleasant affair? A game should never feel like an unpleasant affair. A game should be fun. The area wasn't terrible due the story and lore intending it to be an unpleasant experience, it was unpleasant to go through due to things that had nothing to do with the lore or story or characters. It was unpleasant on a gameplay, mechanical level. - This has nothing to do with the idea of a large mega dungeon though, pulled off well it could be a great deal of fun. I'm for there being a story thread that has you do something there, to introduce you to it, but I'd prefer the story not involve it. Rather acting as a side thing you could do, or not do, as you please. It would need to be very well crafted, in my mind, because . . . honestly when I look for something in PE it's not a dungeon crawler. It's a Role-playing game. People mix up dungeon crawlers with role-playing games far too often. So if it's there it needs to fit, and there needs to be more to it than just combat. Maybe dialogue, but the first thought that comes to mind are 'challenges' puzzles, riddles and mysteries to solve sort of thing. Combat too? Sure. But if it's just combat . . . no. As for the combat that's there it should be the absolute in challenging, the kind that grinding and powerful items won't save you from, the kind that can only be overcome with absolute strategy and planning, tactical thinking prior to combat and on your toes. I don't want a randomly generated combat fest. That's not what I play an RPG for, and anyone that does isn't looking to play an RPG at all as far as I'm concerned.

If they're fitting for the setting sure. If not, no. If it were something similar, sure, as long as it's fitting for the setting. Given we have armor and such though (from what we've been told)? . . . I don't know that such a system would even be needed.

Like it already is? Funny, I thinkt hey look rather good, Not necessarily entirely wrong, but also not really important if the artisty is exceptional. Given most of the games I go back and replay, still to this day, are 2D with static backgrounds that don't bother me in the least, that I in fact adore, I am not bothered by this in the least. Nevermind that countless 2D games (and mixtures of 2D and 3D elements for that matter) exist, many fine, even exceptional, in their own right, and not just old ones but more recent examples as well.

What if it's a tower Dungeon lancing upward, strikingly, toward the stars like an ominous spear impaling the earth?

Level caps are generally there if content maxes out at a particular point, and the developers don't ever want you so far above that mark that it becomes trivial. So my assumption is that whether there is a level cap or not, and, if there is, how high, will be determined by how open ended the game it, and just how high the content goes. For example if you can keep playing after you've beaten the main storyline, and can find much higher level things, it's generally a given a level cap, if there is one, won't max out with the storyline itself. If the game is more linear in that 'you have the main story and the side stories' you may end up with a more limited leveling range. In the end what's best for the game is that a level cap, if there is one at all, fits the game itself. I don't care much for arbitrary leveling systems to be honest, though i don't hate them either... I kind of want to see a bit of innovation in this area, for example...when I level up, why would i be able to advance in Archery if i've spent all my time fighting with a sword and have never picked up a bow in my life? i'd like to see some kind of balance between leveling and actual in game experience regarding skills that you're able to acquire. oh, and arbitrary level caps are lame...I want a better excuse for not being able to advance a character other than a cap. How about I can't get better with my sword for now because my muscles are already at their snapping point and to proceed any further i'd have to visit some alchemist who could enhance my sword arm (cue said alchemist for sequel)... little touches like that help smooth out rough edges and increase realism/immersion when implementing rule systems. The idea of the leveling processing using the context of 'what you've been doing' as a basis for what's available is an interesting one, I don't not how viable, likely or even practical it is . . . but it definitely caught my interest enough to get me thinking about it.

Intelligent Evil that's not just plain blood thirsty? Yeah that'd be nice, though I'd also like more negative side options that aren't really evil in general. Unlawful, rude, manipulative and other sort of options should exist that don't reduce the character to being a simple bully. Remember it's just the same principal as a Villain, a good villain has objectives and motivations that are as good, if not arguably better than, the protagonist's motivations and goals. If you apply that sort of thinking to a more negative player character I think that would make the more nasty options far less . . . eye rolling or stupid.

One player character plus companions.

Larger world and more content (locations, factions, NPCs, quests, items) More text (dialogs; written lore in the form of books, texts and item descriptions like in BG) Modding toolkit More replayability (more choices and consequences) All of the above from the first row massively interest me so much it was really hard to choose.

In the end this is why, while I support game balance between melee and magic/ranged for gameplay reasons, it always irks me a little to see games where you have a bunch of melee types hacking away at a 'insert horrific abomination here's' toenails. Obviously for fair play and balance they need to be functional though. Purely practical sides say the guy with the cute little sword versus the one that can turn your blood to acid isn't going to end well though. On the other hand I did enjoy Shadow of the Colossus so any time I see a melee class in an RPG I always think of that game. Not really practical for the sort of game Obsidian are making though.

I really, really don't need partially voiced or fully voiced NPCs to enjoy a game to its fullest regardless of what some developers, publishers and . . . unfortunately consumers insist.

I always liked Bishop in NWN2 for this reason, despite everyone really seeming to dislike the original NWN2 campaign. In fact the only character he seemed to like was my play through as a Chaotic Neutral Sorceress (and that took a long while to happen). He hated Casavir though (then again, so did I).

While I'm not sure this is fitting for the game, I'll admit that sort of 'earning' your class in games like Gothic II was actually pretty neat.

Lovely. Just plain lovely. Thank you for posting those. The animations of the character and the backgrounds it's on, the shadow and light work, the colors, the texture of the rocks and ground and ground cover everything is gorgeous. The plants and grass are even lovely, as well as the shadow play over them. The character, and its animations, blend astoundingly well with the world.

I want to see an intelligent, short, average looking, pale, magic using woman with long black hair in very conservative dress that has a serious deadpan 'Bored Now' approach to conversation who sarcastic remarks that are annoyingly insightful about everything you do. She will always find something wrong no matter your decisions, but always support your freedom to make the decision, her real intent being to make your realize the long term consequences of action and how they can be wholly different from the initially intended results. A young Kreia, in some ways, but less about manipulation and with much less experience to draw from. Where Kreia would have spoke with a bosessed surety, this character would speak with a gentle resignation that life cannot be controlled, that the harder you squeeze the greater the eventual backlash (regardless of up front success), no matter which way of thinking you lean toward. As a character she'd act as a grounding device, of sorts, we're she pulls the party back down to earth, so to speak, when they get too full of themselves or they have a success, again, no matter which way they lean in terms of their intent be it aggresive and violent or kind and gentle or harsh and justified. Rather than a mentor, though, she'd be more of a student considering herself learning from the 'chaos of the world' and 'repeating what it's taught her'. She's the reminder that the man you just saved may, in fact, not pass the kind act on. That the hobo you gave money to may just beg for more money again despite being given plenty because he wants a free ride. And so on. An observer, the observant. Statistically she'd be geared toward those that support magic and of types of magic she'd be less about offense or defense and more about change. The transmutation sort of character delighted with actions, reactions, consequences and change. In speech she'd be polite, but honest, even when people wouldn't want her to be. She's have a clear respectful tone, but despite that could get on people's nerves because, while invariably polite and respectful in 'how' she talks, the actual content, even when put politely, could be of the brand that would annoy, infuriate and so on. Whether she's aware that the things she says may offend people, no, she's honest and honestly thinks the things she says but looks to much at the large long term picture and has trouble seeing the immediate people and their feelings in front of her.

I like the second because it goes with the idea that you have your spells that have their usual uses, but they have other uses that aren't obvious up front until you really think about it. I always like when there are depths to spells beyond their obvious direct use.

A better question, "Why wouldn't I want to see graphics like that?" mote's first four contribution to the thread being amongst my favorites.

I wish people weren't so quick to jump to the typical medieval, roman, germanic and the like designs. It's a selfish want but I've longed to see what I'd classify as 'ancient fantasy' taking weapon, armor, architecture, style and other designs from some of the most ancient primitive and advanced cultures in our own history, and giving them a fantastical twist or simply using them as an inspired basis. The sort of thing that might predate typical ideas of Chainmail and Plate armor, or the typical style of weapons we're used to. There's nothing wrong with what we're used to, I've just seen it so many times . . . sure it can be done well, and it seems this is exactly what we're going with, but it would have been niced to pull from much, much earlier periods covering Ancient South American, Ancient Mid-Eastern and other areas. Ancient Persia, Ancient Sumeria and so many others have so much to offer from a purely stylistic point of view, where even the things that may have served the same function just really looked almost alien to the later variations. Not necessarily better ways of thinking, not by a long shot, but often different of the sort that makes a modern person wonder why they thought that was a good idea. Sure even when faulty . . . if your fantasy world sticks with that line of thinking, then it's only faulty when compared with the more perfected variations that came later. For the times they lived and functioned in they were suitable. In the end, well, game will be just fine with what it is pulling from, there's nothing wrong with what they've chosen. I'm looking forward to it. I just can't help but wonder, since we do have traditional fantasy races . . . what would have truly ancient elves used? Not the old perfected elves or the down troden elves or anything but the elves that, for lack of a better example, the equivalent of Humans that were just a step ahead of cavemen. What would they have used? Worn? These are the kind of things that I want to think about and see inspiration (note: inspiration, not carbon copies) pulled from ancient cultures for.

The more I think about it, the more I don't see it. While certainly everyone, presumably, has a soul not all souls are equal in the game world's lore as noted, and it doesn't suggest that everyone can wield such energy as superhuman or magical power. If you had a class that was this game world equivalent to a Eldritch-Knight or a Paladin, then sure, but a pure Warrior/Fighter type of idea? No. I don't see it for the very reason people tend to play a Warrior/Fighter type over another class. That they are mundane, that they aren't magical or supernatural or superhuman. The entire draw of the non-magical class that some people want to play is destroyed if they suddenly also use magic or wield superhuman/supernatural abilities.

I always prefer a game that makes me think before entering a room (as an example). In my mind you should be discouraged from just busting in, diving head first and hacking away. Strategic thinking is import, planning prior and on your toes. If I can casually enter an area and take out everything, not worrying about input or tactics there's something wrong. I want the game to force the mind's thinking away from the straight forward. Tactics. Scouting. Observation. Flanking. Exploitation of observed weaknesses. Further planning and observation on the fly for what could not be gleaned from an innactive foe in regard to their abilities that they might only unleash when pushed into combat and certain situations. Traps. Ambushes. If I can get through the wall by bashing my head against it repeatedly, I'm disappointed, I should have been forced to use the bread inside my head, and not just render it null and squishy it through the monotony of repeitious tasks.

Seems to me like pointing to buffs for warriors(increase strength, haste etc). Of course I could be wrong but that is how I interpreted it. I don't know about 'Warriors' or 'Fighters' but what it suggested were a variety of things. Not that they'd be casting spells as much as enhancing themselves, think of the buffs, if they're even that, not as spells or magic at all is my opinion of it, given they did make the separation of logic. I think more of the Monk that uses his spiritual power to enhance his movement, his speed, the power of his blows and so on. Which, while obviously supernatural, to an extent, doesn't really flag as magic. So in short I agree. I'd expect what we see to be more like buffs, but more along the lines of a Super Human (Human being relative) who can naturally boost his strength (more or less) for periods of time than a Warrior that casts a spell to boost his strength. Again that distinction makes sense to me because they did separate the 'mundanely superhuman' and 'explosively magical' into very distinct categories.

Not a fan of Chess I take it?

On the note about realism . . . one thing that, to me anyways, makes a game more tactical is that even a succesful approach to a challenge can be subject to mistakes. If you're in a crowded area, and you're fighting something unpleasant, I don't believe there should be a free pass when it comes to anyone caught in or around the line of fire. I think you should have to worry about those people if you play a good, caring sort of character. I think there should be reactions and consequences if you either make a mistake and hurt people by accident, or on purpose because you felt the ends justified the means in combating a foe - even if that meant non-combatants got hurt too. I don't really like the idea of some poor kid being depicted, and people causually slaughtering them, but I do think that a person should have to think before they leap. If you're in a crowded area, and don't want to hurt people that adds a layer of strategy. If you're in a crowded area and don't care the people get hurt that adds a layer of consequence and fallout in a well made game. And I do mean consequnce. The towns people you were supposed to be helping crying for you to be strung up and burned at the stake for accidently, or otherwise, hurting one or more of theirs in the process. Even if not crying for your blood then not viewing you well and wanting you gone, at the very least. Revenge and justice for your mistakes, or apathy toward the suffering of others - that you cause - are good themes to explore if, and I stress IF, well crafted by the writers and artists who present those themes visually.

Let's put my opinion on such things this way, if Obsidian released a text only RPG, and it was good enough, I'd still buy it. The quality of what's there is what matters to me, not the particular presentation as long as that presentation is quality. Quality writing is a form of presentation I can accept. I'm looking for the quality they're bringing to the table first and foremost.

Darn it I knew all the world's problems could be traced to a single source, a source whose very existence is so negative that events past present and future, regardless of whether the source existed yet, are linked to the existence of the source at some point in time! Blast! If only people were somehow liable or responsible for their actions, and particular mediums weren't wholly to blame for all the wrongs in the world throughout history!

They didn't really suggest that just having a soul meant you can use magic, and in fact set up that some are simply more likely to develop supernatural ability (such as super human strenth) or something as flashy as outright magical power. It's there but it's not a definite.