septembervirgin

I think games can be successful if they permit play afterwards, games with some reward and drain of said reward (food, drink, inn rooms) plus an upper level cap above what could be gained in the story. Of course, should PE be greatly successful, there might be some way of continuing play with a flow of DLC and maybe an Expansion or two. Plus, we might not have to worry because there will be other Old Fashioned CRPG appearing plus their DLC and expansions. And we'll have no extra money for those wonderful Magnum boots we've been considering and that trip to LA... *le sigh*

Don't forget telekinesis, possession, and the age-old threat of making everyone in the party think it's a nice non-haunted area before luring each off alone and killing them separately.

I'm unpleasantly surprised by the amount of people who want to see misogyny. It's not as if this doesn't exist presently. Then again, maybe all these voters are from egalitarian communes and have no experience with misogyny at all. I know there's a dearth of realistic misogyny in games, though... but to be honest, I'm not sure a designer living a relatively luxurious life wishes to fill a game with obnoxious qualities that offend a numerous portion of the fanbase both established and potential.

Hm. GoG advertisement?

Total War: Rome 2 (if my rig can handle the lowest setting) Europa Universalis 4 SimCity Wasteland 2 King's Quest (didn't know this was being released actually) I'd be hopeful about other games coming out in 2013 but my apartment doesn't have a phone jack and I have to use wifi for my desktop.

I agree with you, Prosper. Games are not for real, the characters don't seem to have a reasonable motive for being where they are and often don't seem to be a product of the game world environment. Also, to succeed, games should be more than a plot with pre-determined button mashing that bottle-neck into decisions that are largely non-emergent. Have you tried Sims 3 and any of the empire building games?

Italian translation. More end-game content so players can keep playing. Maybe a new region for that end-game content.

That's why I keep making small suggestions whensoever I can that computer game designers should pluck up the chart heavy Dice and Books RPG of yesteryear. Games like Fantasy HERO, Rolemaster, Chivalry and Sorcery -- all of these games can benefit from computer adaptation (and in some cases a small clean-up of their rule systems). I like the ideas you come up with, Psycho Blonde!

I think inserting economic influences as a part of gameplay going hand-in-hand with both story elements and arising conflicts would be a unique feature that should appear in later expansion. As far as results go, economic repercussions are a mature consideration that must really be a part of any mature understanding of a world, perhaps even of a fictional world. EDIT: And hey, where do all the gold coins come from anyway? Why do we never see a Numismatics Factory?

I like the concept of bribing NPC members of groups, sort of like an Illuminati card game except individual members exist. Individual members of the represented organization networks can be manuevered for one turn by an opponent who succeeds in a bribe.

Monks are going to be martial artists whether we want them to be or not. What I'd like to see is the monk using self-modification spells in tandem with weaponless and unarmored combat. Faked. The iron bar would have to be swung with sufficient force to bend an iron bar, and no matter how a monk is trained in Lama, there's no way of hardening the body to bend iron on a baseball bat swing. Alot of the so-called super powers of martial arts are faked. I don't want to disappoint those who desire to be ninjas. Especially Tantra Super Ninja!

I can't answer your questionaire because I feel that the minimum starting attribute should not begin at one. Also, I think attributes should have related real-world equivalent or description. I also do not agree that attributes should at all be influenced by class & species but rather by magical alteration and perks that permit a higher than normal attribute. Multiclassing should be perk dependent or be the result of time dilation in the game, where the story passes over a period of time and the characters are presumed to be in training or leisure, whichever the player decides.

I've noticed the scarcity of mid-regions in BG2 and have felt a bit stranded in my opinion that BG1 is superior when it comes to a game about exploration and discovery. Baldur's Gate also has some stunning minor characters, which function as appealing asides and commentary. I think PE could do better than any of its predecessors if the designers have the mental wherewithal to cull minor characters out of the churning milieu they are inventing.

I think most liches are familiar with legends of individual heroes who manage to defeat very powerful beings, not to mention bands of heroes that overcome all in their way. No, liches aren't without information resources. I know we're hog wild to fight a lich but I think liches should be like easter eggs (in the earlier sense of the term), surprise events that are hard to get except with a walkthrough. The rarity of an actual lich hanging around to die is approximately equal to the chance a lich wouldn't have the following spells ready: polymorph other, domination, telepathy, teleport self. The lich could easily transform any number of servitors into its genera, dominate them, establish a telepathic link (via spell, not psionics). If liches are like skeletons for highest level characters, they lose their charm. Liches should be scalable individual combatants and not appear en masse. Command officers of the undead, not unlike vampire royalty. Unlike vampires, most interpretations of liches claim they do not need to drain life force (although that's entirely open to the designers' portrayal). Of course, this is just my view of liches, and we all seem to be reading that people want to see liches on the table as an occasional dessert. From a content accessibility standpoint, maybe liches could be the eventual *result* of compiled evil by mortals and undead alike. Instead of being a remarkably capable individual who seeks viable evil paths to maintain their existence and preference towards brutality, liches might be generated by the sheer contamination that the undead wreck, a sort of hive mind director of ghosts and other intangibles. This would make them more common and less prone to solitude, less quick to evade. I mean, we could have stupid liches who don't run from potential greater danger or a lich who is sometimes prone to stupidity, a lich struck silly by the deities of good (who can't provide them with a path of wisdom and kindness). Yet this all seems as insipid as capturing the heroes, leaving them alive, storing their weapons nearby, and letting easily defeated guards roam in close proximity with no instruction as to emergency procedures. Sort of a reverse of "setting traps for wolves" syndrome.

Well, it might not grow more than a few levels, so I am tempted to leave it in the hands of Obsidian without any comment. However I do believe that the dungeon should be expandable and imply just as much, so that later Obsidian DLC and Expansions can provide substantial increases to that dungeon (which should prove popular).

Wouldn't that depend on the individual? It might depend on the individual to a certain degree but after centuries of unlife, wouldn't they wish to continue their will and existence?

I somehow think we might not breach six levels total now. Unless there's a resurgence of interest, we're going to crawl along a small dungeon of six levels deep.

My thoughts return to the excellent (yet derivative to its detriment) haunting story in Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines. The Ocean House Hotel. Now, from a gameplay standpoint I would've wanted to see it develop into a fully fleshed wraith scenario as perceived through the vampiric main character; but they didn't have the time nor the energy I'd guess to hammer out a summary of the setting of Wraith the Oblivion into an interactive branching story set within a huge hotel. It couldn't be huge either, but it was still a nice story without all the window-dressing I'd prefer. All the same, if we have an opportunity to collect stories about the undead, shouldn't these stories be interwoven with a great many subplots that portray the wilting, desperate servants and survivors of catastrophe? Now, I read that customers want liches. There's a way to introduce liches which isn't a short dialogue ending with "Behold the might of Gaxkang!" and there's a way not to introduce liches. Powerful undead sorcerers do not confront parties of powerful adventurers face-to-face. They plot and plan the centuries away with all the cunning of ancient dragons and perhaps with less hubris. Remember, each of the power players in the game world are more likely to be met through their plans and the remnant damage they do, their stay-over forces and strategies of tension. No lich, no vampire is going to play Buffy the Vampire Slayer with anyone if they have any means of escape. Their pride is not greater than their desire to maintain their unlife unless they have marvelous prospect in the infernal reaches. All I can suggest is that the undead who are intelligent act that way. While they have hungers they feed these hungers cleverly, casually handicapping a hundredfold slaves without killing them. They let their victims recover, they nourish in these victims a love of evil and an interpretation of suffering as toughness and virility, of compassion for the hunger of a distant and masterful being (who is actually just a wicked demon or wraith).

Yes, let's talk to each of them, singly, in turn!

I think the barbarian class sounds a little too much like every barbarian class that exists. They should be less prone to exhaustion, swifter and usually more powerful than fighters, and more susceptible to magic -- at least if you want to emulate the Robert E Howard style barbarian. Conan had a deep superstition and awe as regards magic. Conan was a pretty canny fighter, relying on instinct, speed, and immense strength. He was not prone to fighting with rage nor "rage exhaustion". One might imagine a barbarian warrior of fantasy as someone who uses myriad weapons, is fast and strong, is capable of wearing heavier armor but is not particularly experienced in wearing heavy armor. They are wise warriors and have some ability as a rogue (stealth), but no ranger abilities except tracking and such. They would be slightly more vulnerable to all forms of magic than most.

I don't think aggro is the right way to approach combat AI. If aggro is used, it should be modified by maybe two or three basic AI tactic sets that are each diversified and built for different difficulty levels or intelligence of the characters. For example, a group of fifty bandits might have scouting in day and night cycles. The scouts they'd use would be thief class characters. The scout would not attack but would probably remain stealthed and report intruders. With aggro, scouts won't exist properly unless a part of a story. Also during battle, scouts would be taking turns attacking then hiding, never keeping an easily noticed formation. Meanwhile, the fighter class bandits would be doing more direct battle, with archers behind spearmen, and shorter arm fighters trying to hit from the flanks. Of course, archers would probably focus "on aggro" unless they thought they had a swift kill in a mid-danger target. If you can't paralyze the heavy damage dealer, restrict their ability to do damage then turn your attention to the priest. If you can't kill the priest quickly, all focus on the easiest target to kill sequential to the danger they present. A wizard's tower might indeed have living guards or animate guards -- but we've all seen the failure of guards that don't operate in tandem with eachother. Guards trigger alarms, run to their emergency stations, then defend en masse, with larger groups fighting the foe and preventing retreat, slowly closing in. A wizard's tower is easier to program the AI for, as angles of approach are easier to define. The wizards could be said to be a smarter foe and would second guess some character weaknesses and vulnerabilities ahead of time, so they would "detect" the best targets ahead of time. While this might sound a bit lethal for a combat AI, planning and saved games can help one get ahead in any struggle. Far more lethal AIs can be formulated.

Solemnly, sonorously. Nasally. As if you're at a funeral with a cold in your nose.

Now if only we could somehow let Italy in on this. Yeah... Italy loves trade opportunities. OR DOES SHE?

REVISED SUGGESTION: 2.8 million: new region, expanded end-game content 3 million: Italian translation and localization, mounts 3.2 million: working economy, issuing trade manifests, player character owned city DLC: The same as before. Added Dungeon Levels for Mega-Dungeon, Seafaring and Aquatic Adventures, Huge Mega-City, and MAYBE Romantic Adventures Series of DLC. Spinoffs: The same as before. Mega-Dungeon of a Hundred Random Levels, Learn Algebra and Calculus from Project Eternity Merchants, Learn Grammar and Advanced Grammar from Project Eternity Nobles, Campsite of Doom and Trees, and MAYBE a Project Eternity Grand Strategy game and a Project Eternity card game (where opponents can be major characters from PE). Figurehead: Ultima had Lord British, monolithic and (almost) all-powerful. Forgotten Realms has Elminster, wizardly wandering powerhouse. Dragon Age has Flemeth, dangerous yet fallible, wise yet at times outguessed. Who in this game is the figurehead that is wise and powerful, reiterating in game after game? Will it be a character so decentralized as Flemeth or Cid? Will it be several characters bound together by a pact or oath or duty? Will it be weak yet unkillable characters who of sheer fortune continue to appear as comic relief?

I think such a thing should wait for an expansion. Perhaps an expansion that features a haunted land.