andreisiadi

Yes I did. Sorry. It's edited now. So...nevermind.

Edit: wrong quote Anyway ogrezilla said I was making up bull****. Then call me on it. Prove me wrong with arguments.

Mimicking - Why do we need to mimic ? Rest - easier ways to fix, see KOTC Strategically choose spells - you mean all spells available at all time, with a minor cooldown for switching suites in the middle of combat bla bla bla - you mean game will be extremely easy and I'll have to play the hardcore mode like in F:NV just so I don't fall asleep. meta-gaming through reloading is not strategy - you mean the game will be so easy you will never have to reload and all spells available at al times and in every battle. Classic Infinity engine game indeed. Do you people actually fall for the market speech ?

The moderator closed my thread and told me to post in a thread with a loaded question for a title. So here it is. Why cooldowns ? I've read your statements. I've heard your answers. They mean nothing. You're avoiding the truth with vague arguments that mean nothing. SO WHY ? I WANT TO KNOW WHY. You said you want to make a classic game. We want to play a classic game. So why give us Dragon Age Reloaded ? Be honest, forget the market speech and just tell us why. If you said you wanted to make a Dragon Age clone, then no publisher would have turned you down. So why come to us ? Perhaps you are tired of getting screwed over royalties by publishers and you want your own Dragon Age Ip so only you get the royalties. In other words, it was never about reviving the classic games or passion or whatever marketing lies you threw at us. It was always about the money. Thanks a lot Obsidian !

Lock why ? I don't want to discuss the merits of cooldowns. I want to speculate why they made the choice. It's a different matter altogether..

Why cooldowns ? I've read your statements. I've heard your answers. They mean nothing. You're avoiding the truth with vague arguments that mean nothing. SO WHY ? I WANT TO KNOW WHY. You said you want to make a classic game. We want to play a classic game. So why give us Dragon Age Reloaded ? Be honest, forget the market speech and just tell us why. If you said you wanted to make a Dragon Age clone, then no publisher would have turned you down. So why come to us ? Perhaps you are tired of getting screwed over royalties by publishers and you want your own Dragon Age Ip so only you get the royalties. In other words, it was never about reviving the classic games or passion or whatever marketing lies you threw at us. It was always about the money. Thanks a lot Obsidian !

It can't be optional. If it's optional you can't put good loot in it thus negating the whole point. So mandatory and about 150% of Watcher's Keep. Stretch goal would be good. But again the loot must be good and the fights really hard. No resting unless level clear. Once you enter the next level you can't go back unless new level also clear.

I want Artemis Entreri's jeweled dagger in game so that when I'm low on hitpoints I can just drain a child in the street and get back to full health. Immortal kids or no kids in the game just because players might kill them is the most retarded thing to come since the french started putting honey on their fried chicken.

Practical Incarnation FTW ! (Planescape Torment reference)

I personally find it annoying when a dedicated rogue is an absolute must-have for the party. I would prefer thieving skills to depend strictly on stats like DEX, Perception, Intelligence etc. then throw in a trait/feat for an added bonus and that's it. This way I can choose which party member gets stuck on thief duty instead of having to choose a certain NPC just because he is the only rogue in the game. Example: BG2

Ah, the old problem of rolling vs point-buy for generating stats. Point-buy should be the obvious winner since rolling and re-rolling is tedious but still many prefer the last one. Why ? Probably because with point-buy you feel you end up with sub-par characters. A simple fighter build requires Strength + Constitution, but anything more complicated depends on 3 to 5 stats to work well. An example: A NPC mage companion needs only 18 Intelligence and he is good to go, but if YOU want to play a mage then you want him to also have dexterity for armor class, constitution for good hitpoints and willpower to resist mind magic. Why ? Because you're the damned hero and it's annoying to walk around with an absolute glass canon for an avatar. I think this is why people prefer rolling, they want their character to be just a bit better than the rest, NOT a demi-god but a HERO nonetheless. I would personally prefer point-buy, but with a good variety of flaws, traits and backgrounds that give bonuses to stats while gimping you in some other way. P.S.: Temple of Elemental Evil had both, but point-buy characters were weaker than rolled characters even on an average roll. That is bad design.

Because I want people that are the opposite of smart to be unable to play the game. I want imbeciles to be discriminated against. And from that I will derive pleasure.

Voted yes. Your list is missing a few things though, like different sets of armor, a ton of potions and that scroll/item that gives you deathward. Edit: "Raid boss" in my D&D ? Oh, how the mighty have fallen...

I want to see videos on youtube where people are raging about dieing in the tutorial dungeon. Then I want a video of a guy solo-ing it on hard difficulty by using tactics with "Bad to the bone" playing in the backround. So, no awesome button please, give me hardcore gameplay, good AI and good encounter design. And if a companion who dropped below 0 HP gets up after battle I'll kill him myself.

I truly hope Obsidian has enough dignity not to cater to a bunch of datesim-loving-smoking-cigarettes.

The reason some of us are against romances in RPGs, is not that the romances themselves are a deal-breaker, it's that romances are a SYMPTOM. A symptom is not the cause of illness, it's merely a visible effect (usually undesirable in itself). In the year 2012, RPG romances are a symptom of dumbed-down, shallow, boring RPGs. We hate the symptom and try to prevent it because we know it's the sign of the festering disease that has plagued RPGs in the last couple of years. As Dakon (PST) would say: "On this issue there cannot be two skies !"

I see a lot of people are saying the BG romances were done right. Maybe you forgot, let me remind you: Viconia: Wanna' hear how I got molested in the woods ? Also I am evil. PC: NO! Viconia: It has naughty bits... Also I am evil. PC: NO! Viconia: I lied. Also I am evil. PC: Oh, for the love of Bhaal...just shut up ! Aerie: I wanna' bitch and moan about how I lost my wings... PC: Walk away from this party right now. Aerie: What ? PC: You're done, shove off. Jaheira: I am pissed and moody about my husb... PC - casting Silence on the party. Later... PC: So, Nalia, you tend to shut up a lot. I find that rather refreshing. Nalia: Not interested. PC: FUUUUUCK ! Oh and let's not forget: "Hi. I'm Anomen..." "Eat fireball you goofy jackass !"

Boone was a totally capable NPC, but he let his personal tragedy get in the way of business. He would open fire like an idiot an any legion troops as if that would help his cause in some way. Because of that he wasn't reliable and not too smart. My second-in-comand archetype would say "I hate these guys, let's come up with a plan to give them enough rope to hang themselves".

First I'll make a quick rundown of companion personalities and concepts used in previous games to give context to what I am proposing. So: 1. We have deep and interesting NPCs who are awesome because of their concept, the idea behind them and implementation/dialogue. Like Dakon (PST) or Kreya (kotor2). 2. We have awesome NPCs by "rule of cool" and/or "funny". Like Morte (PST) or Minsc and Jan (BG2) or HK-47 (kotor2). 3. Mildly interesting, generally OK NPCs like Yoshimo (BG2) or Aton and Handmaiden (kotor2) 4. Tolerable NPCs - it's like they're not even there. No examples here because ironically I don't remember them, but you know - the filler guys who were in the party because you needed a rogue or a cleric, or their stats were to good to pass up. 5. The insufferable whiny, bickering, angsty child-like NPCs, who would throw their alignment in your face at every turn, question logical decisions and generally make a nuisance of themselves while in the party. I won't name them either because they tend to slide into the previous category depending on taste and playing style. -------- Now, if I look at the above list, it seems to me that it's missing the archetype of a reliable companion. Let me elaborate: I would like a NPC that I can fully trust to be my second in command and do a good job at it. He has to be just as powerful and smart as the PC, command the same respect with the others (leadership) and make decisions that make sense. That last part means he won't do stupid and clearly illogical things just because he is lawfull good or chaotic evil or a thief or whatever. If the context is one where he needs to adapt he will (at least to an extent) no matter his stated values. To put it in fewer words - he would act as a PC, meta-gaming and all. I have tried to come up with an example from fiction(books, movies, etc.) and unfortunately the best I could come up with is Cmd. Striker from the Star Trek:TNG series. He can do almost everything the PC (Picard) can do, still has a personality and he is reliable. A perfect right-hand man. In contrast, Spock would not fit the role because his defining trait, logic, is up-played too much and becomes for most of the time a bland logic-bot. In conclusion, I have never seen a reliable and well done "second in command" type character that is not one dimensional and that adapts to situations the same way a PC would. I would like to see such a companion, and perhaps with the help of the talented writers at Obsidian, a very interesting one could be made. Oh and sorry for the Star Trek reference, probably not everyone is a fan or familiar with the series. P.S.: I just remembered an in-game example that would qualify, although only for a particular situation. In kotor2, while the PC is trapped in the poison gas alien bar, Atton, shows initiative and stakes the place out while you're in there. He knows the mercenaries are gunning for your crew, so he sets himself up as bait and whacks them off. Anyway, the point is he functions well even without PC's "adult" supervision. Unfortunately he's missing the crucial leadership component to act as a true second-in-command.

I loved BG1+2, PST, Arcanum and other old school rpgs and despite da2 being a fiasco and the last ten minutes of ME3 being utter-------- on a stick, I loved DA:O and the Mass effect series while not a traditional or old school rpg, was still A ROLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Playing Game....... you played a role ------> therefore it was and RPG or if you are being finicky an RPG with shooter combat or an RPG/ shooter hybrid. It was still a great game series and in the 2nd and third games despite the increase in shooter elements the morality system continued to blur the lines of conventional morality and had some great moments where small stories or characters developed throughout the three games. It is unfair to split the two groups, it is not the way it is! I'm afraid it is, at least for me. It has been discussed and argued again and again so there's no point in beating the proverbial dead horse. Suffice to say I consider the new generation of Bioware games to be a simplified version of the old and I cannot enjoy them for what they are. In this aspect I cannot be swayed by any argument. Also, this has no impact on my pledge. I support this game based on Obsidian's writing skills alone. I am curious however to know which way they lean on the old school vs new school axis. And I must admit that personally I am a bit... worried that they will listen to suggestions such as "I want romances with everyone and everything, and a big house to choose furniture and hoard my adopted orphan kids !!!lol ". As offensive as this may sound, and I apologize, I feel that the increasing number of these kind of "fans" is somehow to blame for not finding games suitable to my tastes anymore.

the question is aimed at Obsidian of course... Which one of the following is true ? 1. You want to make the game the way you think it's best. This means ignoring (if necessary) suggestions from the fans. 2. You want to make a game that appeals to the people who played the rpgs on that picture/poster with different titles you were involved in. 3. You want to make a game that appeals to the people who like one or more titles from the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series. 4. You want to make a game that appeals to the people from n.2. and also the people from n.3. ........... My personal opinion (and probably a lot of other people's too): 1. (if true): Excellent ! 2. (if true): Great ! 3. (if true): Betrayers and false Messiahs all of you ! 4. (if true): Pitiful ! For those that would try to argue that it's unfair to split players into old school vs DA lovers: it doesn't matter if it's fair or not, that's just the way it is. This is not a plea to make the game that I want, this is in hope that the next piece of information Obsidian releases will clarify this point because it's rather important to some of us.