Umberlin

How much for the holy sword of ungodly might and destruction +7? 5 gold. How much for that back pack? An arm, three legs, your next four unborn children, twelve kingdoms, a donkey and all the wealth of the universe. Plus tax.

I'm glad he decided to talk about it, and go into some of the reasoning. Personally, as far as I'm concerned, he's right, I don't care enough about a justification for 'how it gets there' to really get up in arms over this. I played Monkey Island, Guybrush stuffed things of ungodly proportions down the black hole of his pants for storage. This works for me. I'd be happy with another manner too, like some of the things suggested in this thread, definitely, but this works for me. I'm not saying it will make every last person on earth happy, personally I'm from the moon, but, I just can't see this bothering me at any point. Not to say some of the things you, and others in this thread, brought up weren't interesting. A lot of that could have been neat too, but, like he said, I'm just not entirely sure a large portion of the potential user base cares - we have plenty of 'endless inventory' RPGs and ARPGs out there, with happy customer bases, to prove that an infinite system is quite acceptable to quite a few people. In this case, we not only have that, but it acts more as a 'storage', than anything, meaning your actual pack and equipment are finite and have combat restrictions. So, in a way, as far as I'm concerned, we get the best of all worlds. My two cents. I still think the thread was worthwhile though.

Well, my point is there are a bunch of impossible questions to answer . . . at this point. We don't know what it means, fully, to be a Priest in this setting - yet. We don't know what it means, fully, to be undead, in this setting - yet (from what little we have I do grasp that we have 'types' and 'extremes' of Undeath. We know tiny bits and pieces about Necromancy, but even that isn't wholly the norm: There are some things here that come off more along the lines of what we've seen from Shaman, Witch Doctor and, yes, even Priests in some other setting. We have some aspects, but not the full story of what Necromancy means in the context of this setting. There's even suggestion that Necromancers are hunted, but not 'necessarily' for reasons of Necromancers being evil, or the undead for that matter. We don't know fully how P:E's concept of the soul ties into such things yet. We have a picture of 'some' being curious, and in legitimate ways, about what lies beyond with others being opposed to learning about it. I liked that it was outlined as learning, not 'just' using, because it makes the notes on hunting down Necromancers about 'knowledge' they might grasp. Rather than simply that a Necromancer is doing something evil and raising evil undead to do evil things. I even note that the 'cult' isn't the Necromancers, but people after Necromancers. Typically 'cult' is used as a negative, by modern standards anyways, so I'm curious if the cult is more the negative element than the various aspects noted as 'Necromantic' . . . I say that because some of those noted elements seem pretty harlmess and standard. Fear is noted, but it's noted as coming from those with extremist methods more than from the Necromaners. Take that speaking to the dead example Obsidian provided in the context of a Necromancer letting a living mortal talk to a dead relative, and ask how evil that sounds compared to killing people, Necromancers, for what they might learn beyond mortal limits. I've seen games where the Undead were holy, returned for a righteous cause. I've seen games where Necromancers were pretty much just Priests. I've seen settings, even IE games, where the equivalent archetype to Priest could control or summon the Undead, if they so chose, and dable in negative energies. I've seen so many variations, that, with what little we know, I simply will not presume to know what is to come until it's told. It's all very interesting, but I think we need more information before we can talk about turn undead styled abilities. They may well be a moot line of thinking. Control, or lack of control could be a divine point, as it was with some Clerics in D&D, where they undead are concerned . . . but it may be a wholly separate thing in this setting. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Like I said: It's a matter of taste and perception. Such a thing can, potentially, readily turn one away as turn one toward, and, any raised questions, one way or another, are all legitimate. I go with my second post in the thread, though, as something I find more interesting: Do I need such things though? No, not at all, whether the subject be a pack animal or otherwise. After thinking about it, it's just not something I'd ask of Obsidian, not to suggest I don't share some similar concerns to Hormalakh about the stash (though not for the same reasons). Still, we haven't seen the full picture, yet, and I think that despite the information we have . . . it's important to frame a whole picture, rather than a partial one. I am happy to be patient, and wait to see, despite some similar concerns.

Do Priests in this setting even care about Necromancy? Even if some Priests do care, is that all Priests, or just some Priests? Does Necromancy have the same implications as other settings? Are the undead even seen in the same way? Are they hostile or viewed in a hostile/feared manner? Lots of . . . questions.

I couldn't tell you. Like I said, though, I don't dislike the idea - it doesn't offend me, and I'd happily use it, if present. I'm just not sure I'd ask for it, and I don't mean that in a, "I don't want it" way. Label me undecided. Maybe it's significant . . . the second you put it in the context of a carraige, or some form of mobile camp - a caravan - the idea somehow seemed more interesting. Mobile is relative. More like a 'camp set piece involving caravan carts' meant to represent why your stash is mobile, but it actually never moves. Instead it's used as a set piece meant to present the idea of a mobile campsight, partially by not putting it at a specific location on the map. The wagons/site actually moving would raise all sorts of questions, complications and problems - no reason to actually go into that.

Hum, did the Mules, and other pack animals, really add another layer to Dungeon Siege, when it had them? If a person's answer is yes, then something like this would likely please them. If not, then, well, I imagine it won't. Questions of its vulnerability, if it takes up character slots in your party, and so on, would all be legitimate questions to bring up. I'm . . . not really sure whether I'd want it, or not, myself. If it was there, would it bothe rme? Probably not. However, I don't see myself 'wanting' it there, if it's not there. Still, we are going to have a stash, that's a definite, and I like their 'top of pack' and 'equipped' elements, in addition to the idea of a stash. I especially like that they noted 'top of pack' items wouldn't be accessible in combat (I assume the same of stash items). The note that top of pack was a finite storage space, while stash was implied to be either much, much larger or inifinite (I wasn't clear on that last bit). I wonder what the equipped portions covers, besides the obvious, does it cover 'belt items' of a sort, that can be accessed in combat? In combat consumables like things you can throw and so on? I have questions . . . and we just got more information, so having more questions already makes me feel greedy.

I agree that romance does not have to be the only possible resolution to a forming relationship. Friendship is definitely a possibility, as you noted, but so are other forms of relationship, even negative ones (your interactions resulting in competition or rivalry or even resulting in a nemesis, just as a few random examples). Then the always popular, heh, 'they just get sick of you and leave or attack.betray you.' Sure, other positives, besides friendship, are possible as well, still discounting romance because, as I said, it doesn't have to be the final solution to a relationship. When games force that on you it gets awkward, anyone that played ME2 or DA2 knows that it can even be very . . . unfortunate . . . when a character baselessly starts hitting on you, as if you've been flirting, when you tell your character to say something . . . supposedly harmless and all of a sudden they're coming onto a character like no one's business. Just trying to talk to Jacob casually, in ME2, could easily result in the most awkward flirting, when all you were trying to be was nice. I cannot stand such things. At all. That's not quality, to me, and, as I say too often probably, "I like quality," what's there is less important than the quality, the cohesion and chemistry of what's there in a game, in regard to any element. If it's just 'there' then . . . it falls flat, at least for me.

Not really a reply to your post, but that highlighted section made me think of some related, but not really, things . . . I'm getting minor flashbacks of His Dark Materials from reading this portion of your post, and, discounting the movie, I rather liked those books . . . so that's not a terrible thing. The portion where Lyra is nearly severed from her Daemon, and how heart breaking it is, just how hard it can yank on the heart strings, alone justifies such an approach if (and I must stress if) such a thing were a focus of a narrative. However, without it being the focus, I wonder how much it can possibly mean, without the quality necessary to make it work being lost. I like the idea of a pet meaning more, in theory, but, as always, the quality has to be there to make it work. Can something usually made to be a minor side portion for 'some' characters carry such quality? I suppose anything is possible, but my answer is that I simply don't know. I'd have to see it in action, well done or otherwise, to know whether it could really, honestly, work.

Bad AI, pathing issues, unintelligent use of abilities, too weak, too strong, too fast, too slow, not mobile enough, outright cheating the set systems and more are all issues I've seen plague pets. In a way, and I know some people won't get what I'm saying, the best 'pets' I've seen in games were not pets at all, but, characters, like Alyx from Half Life 2, especially from Episode 1, and the Vort from Episode 2. They're guilty, and not just a bit, of 'cheating the system' but they did function, and do interesting things. Now, again, people won't get what I'm getting at because 'well they aren't pets and that's a single player games, and not RPGs, with set pieces that the developers could better predict' and other things . . . which are all true. Still . . . let me justify why I bring up that game, and those two characters: 1. Because they were actually beneficial to have around. 2. Because they were interesting to have around, and not annoying on a character level. 3. They were characters with some iota of matter in the world. 4. They did interesting things, at times, with the environment (kicking/blasting things open, like doors, picking stuff up and using it [the shotgun]), and character during battle/actual gameplay (like ALyx wincing at the light) 5. They could actually go with you, and do things with you, without getting stuck or being a pain. And so on. Now, again, people will rightly bring up some issues with all this (and rightly so), but, let's set those issues aside and get to why I'm bringing them up. Because, when I have a pet, in a game, be a summoned pet or a dog or whatever . . . I always compare them. Especially when they get stuck on a bit of terrain. I always judge the ones that are less interesting against the ones that 'do' things that make me think about them, make me care about them, and, most importantly, make me remember them. In Torchlight II I easily forget that the pet even exists. That's a bad thing, and, to me, makes the pet feel like a bad implementation. I want a pet to matter enough that I remember it's there, but never stand out, especially in a negative way, to an extent that detracts from the game or its gameplay. I want it to be interesting and entertaining to watch, to do things, interact with the environment and my character. and so on . . . but why? Because when it's just another pet I summoned that goes away after a time, or dies, I rarely care. In some cases that's how it should be (a Necromancer type summoning throw away minions that he or she may randomly explode). In other cases, especially (and this is 'why' I'm writing this) in the case of a 'Familiar' type character, it feels wrong. A familiar styled pet just needs to be there for more, and have presence and personality, even if it doesn't have dialogue. Alyx is a great wya of putting this, because, outside of her character/dialogue she has countless little moments of personality that don't require a line of dialogue. The other case, besides the familiar, is the actual pet, again, like a dog, and, again, it's not right if it feels like just this throw away thing. If it gets hurt or damaged you should care, and you should care because of it reacts to these situations. A pet, contrary to popular belief, is not an animal, if you really are a pet person, and get to know that dog or cat, you can pick out personality quirks as intricate as any Human being might have. A person. With personality (this applies to the Familiar too). - Still, none of that matters. Even a faceless/soulless pet can work in an RPG, my main gripe with that style, isn't their lack of character, but, again, the first thing I said - 'issues' like bad pathing, bad ai, bad/limited/no use of abilities and so on and so forth. Regardless of the style, regardless of whether they have character, or not (they don't have to, not all pet types fit with such a design style), they still need to 'function' . . . function and not hinder. Good pathing. Good AI. Good use of abilities. No getting stuck on things. No shooting at a wall that an enemy is behind, an enemy not even aware of them. Blah blah blah . . . As always with me, it's not about 'what' they decide to do with pets, if they have pets at all, it's the quality of them. If they're not in the game, no harm done. If they are in the game the quality has to be there or they too easily become the sort of pet too many games present, the type that hinder, rather than help, to the point you are better of never using them. This goes double for the type that block you in hallways/caves/corridors.

I've said my piece on this before, and I don't really need relationships in a game. If such things are there, they need to be quality. I don't care about the genders or types of romances, I don't care if they're a negative or a positive that has negative or positive fallout. The quality is the matter of important, not the particular takes. I do think, as someone noted (much much) earlier, that, rather from a romantic point of view it would be interesting to see a game, one day, from the perspective of a main character, in a setting, where the driving points of the story were a romance that they did not want to be in. Usually in games, the few where we have a romance that isn't dictated as an absolute, the romance is one where the PC pursues. It could be interesting where, for better or worse, in the end of said story, the PC was pursued, and not by someone that game drives you to like - especially if it was put up against a background that the relationship, while not wanted, could be beneficial within the contexts of the game's story, cultures, peoples, nation, etc etc etc . . . Still, this is P:E, and, while it would, or, at least, could be . . . interesting to explore in a game dedicated to it, such an idea does in fact require such a game - mainly 'dedicated' to it. In P:E romances, of any kind, could be absent, and I don't think the game would suffer at all for it. I only think it will suffer if romances are badly done or shoehorned into it. Things that 'fit' and things that are of 'quality' are what matter, and, really, I'm no judge for what fits, and I won't know quality until I play through it (which I may never, since I don't tend to pursue romatic situations in games). So, really, whatever Obsidian decides, I'll trust, if they decide to add romances I'll trust that they are fitting, and, as for quality, I'll decide, or not, for myself on my own terms once the game is released.

Yes. It is. It's not the type of system I'm trying to think of present in a game though.

True, but that's not the brand of system I'm attempting to think of, present in a game. That sounds closer, but it seems like there was a cRPG, or something, at some point. You know, if I wasn't trying to think of it I wouldn't be having trouble remembering . . . it's one of those silly things.

Well, like I said, I do believe effort should be rewarded. It's less about whether I agree, or disagree, I think, in the end, I just need to wait for more information. With the little information we have on the game all I have are questions, and a lot of not being sure how I feel on some aspects until I see them properly layed in place. So, yeah, patience. I'm trying to wrack my brain to think if there was ever a game that gave XP on first encounter, of an enemy type, and less or progressive less to eventually no or just outright no experience on further encounters with said type. It seems like there should be an example of that out there. I can't think of anything right now though. I can think of games, Chrono Cross, for example, where only specific encounters, would further your experience, but that's not what I'm trying to think of. I can think of games where only missions give you experience, and never enemies. I can . . . basically I can think of a lot of reward types, across various games, but for some reason I'm failing to think of a game that used that one, or a varient, of said system. I want to remember, if it existed, so I could remember if it was in any way serviceable.

One of the interesting things in RPGs in the idea of risk versus reward. In some games, as we have evidence right in this thread, they opt to cut out the experience game from the typical fight. Some gives you the experience to level from sources like quests, others from boss-like encounters and still others from combinations of both or other sources. Then of course some games just axe experience and levels entirely. As a low level character, I wonder if the idea that 'this trash enemy', for lack of a better term, yields them nothing is discouraging in some cases. Certainly they expended effort, and should be rewarded, so we reward them through means other than experience. Still, the idea that they aren't worth experience raises a question of 'challenge' . . . that being, 'if the enemy isn't challenging enough to warrant a granting of experience, then why are they there?' Let's talk difficulty in general, and as ourselves, do you want 'trash' enemies that aren't on the level of bosses? Should not every encounter be a challenging situation begging tactical approaches? If the challenge is properly significant . . . then why no experience? If no experience, then what is the decider of what is worthy? If worthy than what if the point of those encounters not challenging enough to be considered unworthy? Are the encounters not to be taken on a singulars basis, but as a whole, part of the larger mission you encounter them upon, rather than on a case by case basis? In the end, I don't really 'need' enemies to be experience pinatas. I do, however, need all enemies to be challenging enough to be worth my time, and not in that 'do lots of damage' or 'have tons of health' way, which I consider tediuum, no, I mean in terms of actual challenge. Smart enemies, good AI, complex attack patterns and tactical use of their numbers and abilities. Things like that. I enjoy, crave and absolutely require challenge. My worry is that enemies not worth experience will . . . not be a worthy challenge. If they are a worthy challenge, my worry is proper reward for the risk and effort involved. Obviously, as I said at the beginning of this paragraph, I don't need experience, so my issue isn't that experience be handed out as a reward. Rather, the real meat I'm getting at, is what reward will mean in the context of a system where some nemies do not grant experience. I've played games that have done this. Some games have them full of loot. Some games have them hold abilities you can learn. Some games have them drop money. Some games have them drop what they're wearing. And so on, and so forth, on and on. I don't need experience as a reward for an effort, but I do like reward for an effort, and I'm not even talking about money or gear specifically. I'm not even sure the reward has to be from an individual encounter to be considered a reward for said encounter, as I mentioned a smaller encounter being a part of a larger experience/mission/quest/whatever. Then you have questions, as in this thread, brought up in the sense of . . . what that larger aspect means. If not on a smaller, case by case basis, then how is the reward decided in the larger scheme? Is it static? Is it dynamic? If it changes, does it changed based on what you do/don't do? Does the reward vary based on the encounters along the way? If you avoided the encounters, using your skillset, does it mean you get less reward in the end? Or are you rewarded for properly using your kit. Are you rewarded differently depending on how you made your way through a quest? Is one path worth less than another? And so on . . . important questions, from a mechanics aspect anyways. Then you get into the idea of what those rewards consist of, and what sort of groupings exist from which rewards can possibly sprout (experience, money, weapons, armor, consumables, etc). - There are a lot of questions here . . . obviously I have no answers. I do eagerly await more information from Obsidian though.

I hope a steady stream of virgins are being sacrificed to the demon lords that power Obsidian's coffee makers.

Very simple. Your assumption is based on nothing. It's just an assumption. On the other hand, I'm talking about a development studio, Obsidian, with a long history of well developed games; featuring interesting worlds, stories, dialogues, characters, gameplay, mechanics and decisions. So, who do I give the benefit of the doubt to? A. Someone, you, that tries to claim a thing's place, or lack of place, in a world they know nothing about? Or . . . B. An established developer, Obsidian, who have proven themselves time and time again, who actually know the story and world they're creating, the place of its peoples in the world, and whether a thing has a place in the world 'they' are creating. This is no assumption. They, Obsidian, are creating every last aspect of this world - without question. The things that exist in the world they're creating, they put there. The links of said things, in the world they are creating are theirs to decide and craft. So, A or B? You, a random person on an internet forum, with no recorded background . . . who is not developing the game . . . or Obsidian . . . the people actually creating the game, with a long standing history of game development. Gee, I wonder which one I should decide to trust of subjects of belonging. Such a hard decision. Still, please, go on, tell us more about what belongs, or doesn't, in this setting you have no part in the creation of. Meanwhile I'll be assuming Obsidian's hard working employees are not the talentless hacks far too many on this forum, especially lately, seem to think they are.

Understandable.

I have no such belief. The ones I'm talking about are people I've actively had to reply to, in some cases, actual people, and no lack of them. Not an imagined mass. You've actually taken part in some of those discussions. You should know. I'm not on about people for questioning. I even said questioning is good. I'm not on about people for going on what they have. I'm on about people acting like they know more than they do about the game, and, even worse, like they know more about game development than the developers (and I can quote some of these whackos). Worse, some of them, far too many in fact, screaming doom and gloom about every aspect of the game from party mechanics to concept art to character to classes and so on and so forth and on and on and on . . . it just gets on my nerves. In short, if what I'm saying doesn't apply to you, or someone else, than I'm not talking about you or someone else. I'm talking about the people these things do apply to. They know who they are. I know who they are, and you've even taken part in conversations with some of them. I'm not on about the people that just want to discuss things. My point was the reaction in the answer to the questions, regardless of the intent of the questions. I even outlined that, at the end.

You know, quest for glory, if you take it game by game, instead of as their entire five entry series . . . they didn't have tons of monsters. Just a few new ones per game. For an example of why this was preferable let's take Quest for Glory II. Quest for Glory II had very few enemies, like other entires. and why I bring it up is that it's probably the best implementation of the existing enemies. Each enemy had very specific abilities, attacks, patterns and behaviours to learn and exploit. If you went to the Guild and trained with Uhura, it wasn't just a way to build up your skills, it was a way to learn different enemy behaviours and attack patterns. She'd give you advice as you trained. She'd change how she attacked, tell you how to defend against different attacks and enemies. These were all part of learning the larger system. The system really began when you got out there and started fighting the enemies. The giant black scorpion could grab you with its impale you with its stinger. The Ghoul drained your stamina, and you would be unable to attack, defend or anything that cost stamina. All this little eccentricities then translated into something more. Those dangerous things; the claws, the tail and other things you could loot off a dead body? They had further use. Go down to the apothecary. He buys these things, specifically, for his business. Why is this important? Well, obviously, you make money, but try buying up his wares in mass. See what happens. He runs out. He needs ingredients to replenish his stock. Few enemies with specific abilities, with remains that have specific uses, in an economy that needs these remains to make its wares to further your own goals as a hero. Your health pills. Your stamina pills. Your mana pills. Etc. Part of the circle of, um, heroism . . . or something. - Yes, you could make such a system with 'more' enemies, but, typically, systems with a mass of enemies have a bunch of very 'stupid' enemies, with uninteresting attack patterns and no real variety. In the end I think I'd rather . . . they start small, make the enemies they have solid, and branch out from there, slowly, paying the attention to detail that each type deserves. If the end result is not that many? I'd still prefer it, because at least they'd, in theory, be well made. They'd fit, and they'd be interesting to fight. Still, it's true, the best laid plans of mice and men, and all that. Anything that can go wrong . . . I'll just hope for the best. In short; I'm happy with few enemies, as long as the quality is there. Quality concerns me more than quantity. Be there few, be there many, be there somewhere in between, quality is my concern. If the quality is there, I'm happy.

While concerns are understandable, toward the unknowns of what the developers are attempting . . . I find something else to be concerned about. It's not what Obsidian are doing that I find of concern, it's the fan views of every last thing they're doing. The amount of negativity toward almost every single aspect, toward almost every single decision, is going beyond simply questioning. Questioning would be fine. It's this outright certainty some people have that one aspect, another, several or all of P:E is inherently wrong or flawed or what have you that's starting to get on my nerves. It's nice to see people voice their concerns, and to see Obsidian respond to them, of course. Still, in short I agree with his response to one of the questions here: The questioner is so certain, and so certain based on . . . what? I share Sawyer's disbelief in the above quote. More and more people that think they know more about the game the Developers are making, than the Developers themselves, despite having next to no information on the game made public yet.

If you have to ask why the Monk is in there, over such a thing, and I quote your post with this, as "Belief!", then you have to ask the same of the Priest, Druid, Cipher, Chanter and Wizard. If you want to get rid of the Monk, you need to get rid of all of those as well. Again, this is not a historically accurate retelling of history - it's a high fantasy setting as portrayed by Obsidian who've yet to fully release information on the world, its people and their culture. What we know may have flavors we recognize, but that in no ways implies we know the full story, nor what is present and why. If Obsidian have included such a class, with such an aesthetic and such abilities then one might assume Obsidian have created a world in which they fit . . . instead of one baselessly assuming they know more about the game, its world and its peoples than the people actually creating it.

Aye, quite amazing stuff. Since we're discussing Celts, here's his version of Boudicca : Maybe not pactical as armor, but it is absolutely lovely in terms of visual design. I dunno about the slits up the leg, however. Why not just a full kilt?

I find it funny to look at the poll wanting Fighters to be magical, when people were popping blood vessels in their heads over the Monk having visually supernatural aspects enhancing their physical prowess.

If two thirds of this forum was to be believed then Obsidian is a talentless hack studio, one which has never made a game, ever, in any incarnation, whose employees are completely ignorant of how RPGs are made in every aspect and whose writers and artists are amongst the most inexperienced and useless in all creation. I'm sure that two thirds of the forum will also agree with you, dear original poster, that the beastiary, and its variety, are completely unacceptable. Luckily, for those of us whose mental states perceive reality, that two thirds, of this forum, are also the same people who post from their local looney bins, hopped up on their daily meds. Personally I'll wait and see what the experienced RPG studio, full of experienced RPG makers, who hail from experienced RPG making studios prior, actually do . . . instead of screaming that the sky is falling before I've even been delivered to a location from which I can even see the sky.