el pinko grande

My official position is that I hate puzzles. Thinking critically, I should say that I actually like certain reaction-based puzzle mini-games from games like Bioshock, though it seems those are unpopular on here. But seriously, if I have to do another Towers of Hanoi-type puzzle, I'm going to put an axe through my computer and devote my gaming time solely to shooting pre-pubescent idiots in Halo.

Nobody wants, well... this happening to the Obsidian forums. It goes all the way to page one-thousand, two hundred and sixteen. It's insane. That pales in comparison to the old Talimancer threads, which went on for thousands upon thousands of pages. Ugh.

I've never understood the notion that NPCs aren't doing anything when you're not around. They didn't become adventurers in the first place by sitting on their ass- presumably they're training and studying and doing other stuff to keep their skills sharp. Plus, if you have a stronghold, I imagine they're filling various military/administrative roles there, as well- training troops, taking on apprentices if they're a caster, etc.

I'd add that the World of Warcraft variations on these creatures are pretty stale, as well.

I dunno, my tabletop experience suggests to me that, if P:E let's you have a family, than they will be horribly killed in P:E2.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Joan_of_arc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica http://en.wikipedia..../wiki/Æthelflæd http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Anne_Bonny ...just to name a few. Certainly most women were relegated to child-rearing duties, but there are plenty of examples of women on the battlefield throughout history. Just because they were rare doesn't mean they didn't exist.

A 1st level character with all that gear will still get his ass kicked by a higher level character without that kind of gear, though. Regardless, I want gear to matter enough that I'm happy about finding the cool new magic sword. I think a similar level of gear dependency to D&D 3.X/Pathfinder is fine, or maybe a bit toned down from that level.

Just once I'd like spears to be good weapons. It seems like the few games that include them tend to underpower them.

Most depictions of druids are kind of silly, it's true. That said, I don't really know how I want them depicted. My first instinct is to draw on Hayao Miyazaki stuff for inspiration, but that would probably result in druids that are a lot like the city-hating extremists I'm complaining about.

Can I just say that, much as I agree that excessive sexualization of female characters in video games is a problem, I actually didn't have an issue with Cadegund's original armor? Purely from a character design perspective, I don't mind armor that's somewhat gendered. If you've got a bunch of plate-wearing characters, all sorts of ahistorical flourishes become necessary to make them visually distinct. Boob plates don't really offend me any more than oversized pauldrons or silly helms or inappropriate spiky bits. Of course, that assumes the purpose of the boob plates isn't titillation. Which, in the context of the original art for Cadegund, I don't think it was.

Given the way they've been describing the setting, I'm gonna guess that a title of nobility goes along with having the stronghold. If so, I'd like it if the game acknowledged that, if people start addressing you as Count/Countess/Margrave/whatever the hell it is you're called, and showing you deference that they didn't before. Make it feel like your character's world has actually changed as a result of their elevation in status. As for the stronghold itself, it would be awesome if the place were reactive to the sort of changes you made to it. So if you're a priest and you build a bunch of religious buildings to gain priest-related bonuses or items, subtle changes occur to the rest of the stronghold. Statues of saints start popping up, the dialog spouted by random peasants as you walk by changes, the sort of music you hear coming from the tavern changes, and so on. Hell, maybe even the textures of the walls change to something more cathedral-like. That way, you could have a single stronghold without the gameplay surrounding it becoming stale playthrough to playthrough.

Ideally an elf ranger. The problem is, I don't like rangers when they're exclusively a ranged class. I like my rangers to be fast melee skirmishers. If being a ranger means you have to use a bow, I'll end up going rogue instead.

If anything, I'm worried that eight might be too many, given the production schedule. Still, if Obsidian thinks they can pull it off, I trust them.

I'm not a fan of most RPG plots. Which is fine; story is much less important to me than interesting characters and situations. Most games, even good ones, I'll forget the story a few days after I beat the game. Like the Baldur's Gate games: I really enjoyed them, but I couldn't tell you anything about the plot of either game, other than maybe dredging up the word "Bhaalspawn." I could tell you all about Imoen, or Minsc & Dynaheir, or Irenicus & Bodhi, though. I could tell you about going to the Underdark, or getting betrayed by Yoshimo. But the details of the plot escape me, and in any case were irrelevant to my enjoyment of the game. The stories I do remember are the simple ones, the details of which are presented to you at the beginning of the game. Finding the Water Chip in Fallout. Learning the Nameless One's past in PS:T. Finding the GECK in Fallout 2. Defeat the Reapers in every Mass Effect game. That stuff sticks with me. Despite that, I probably enjoyed BG2 more than PS:T, because plot isn't that central to my enjoyment of the game.

You think of your character in CRPGs as a total blank slate? That's interesting. I don't, and I suspect most people who play these games don't. The point of the protaganist being presented as a blank slate is that it allows you to fill in the details yourself. I'm sure you know that, but it bears repeating because your argument doesn't seem to acknowledge that point. And the game isn't being presented for an audience in the sense you seem to be describing, it's more a part of an ongoing conversation between the player and the developers. Really, you're describing CRPGs like a cold medium when they're a hot medium. The audience isn't passive, it's active and participatory. Now, you also touch on an interesting point regarding affection being a reward for succeeding at gameplay. I think the presumption of the genre is that players will choose the option that is true to their character, rather than the option that produces the optimal outcome. The reality is somewhere in between those two poles, I'm sure. The point remains, however, if you simply follow the Gamefaqs prescribed route, you're missing a good chunk of what's supposed to be enjoyable about these games- the role-playing. It's no different than playing a puzzle game with a guide in front of you. Sure, you get the satisfaction of beating the game, but you're also missing out on the process of discovery that's part of the appeal for fans of the genre. So, I don't think you can talk about CRPG romances the way you do purely literary ones. The point is that it's a subjective experience. The character of the protaganist is 90% in the players head. Someone watching you play the game won't have the same experience you will. And yes, the romanatic interest will always respond the same way to the same inputs, but I think that's a feature, not a bug. As you define your own character, so to do you define (in part) the romantic interest, since your actions tell you what it is they're attracted to.

If we ever get an RPG set in a well-done fantasy version of the Byzantine Empire, I will buy an island and start my own nation there, purely for the purpse of marrying that video game.

If this game puts up huge sales numbers, sure, things will change. And I think it's possible that it will sell quite well, though I don't think it will put up the kind of numbers that will make the big publishers change their business model. What it might do is encourage other companies to enter the mid- to low-budget PC RPG market, which I think would be great.

I'd like a few lines of dialog for each companion NPC when you first meet them, and maybe some battle shouts as well. I feel like having a voice associated with the NPCs is a good thing. But otherwise, it's not something I want lots of the game's budget going towards. The PC should definitely be silent, except possibly for some battle cries.

Okay. So, if there's going to be romances, which I would like, I do think they need to involve some roleplaying. Don't just make it a single track that leads inevitably to the same place- let players make choices. My personal favorite romances are probably Viconia in BG2 and Jack in ME2. I dig the redemption angle, especially because redemption isn't the only possible path for those characters. On the flip side, I'm willing to bet players who are into playing evil characters would like the opportunity to corrupt otherwise good NPCs, as well. And even if you're not effecting huge changes in the NPCs character, I still think the romances should have multiple paths. Hell, I think relationships with every companion NPC should have multiple paths, romantic or not. It adds depth to the companions, and its a great opportunity for the player to make decisions that define who their character actually is. Oh, and please don't make it so that the good path leads to the happy ending and the evil path leads to the unhappy ending. I don't think that's something that Obsidian would actually do, but still. Good intentions shouldn't necessarily lead to good outcomes. I mean, they certainly can if its organic to the story being told, but I don't want it to be an automatic outcome.

Incidentally, I'd love to see feudalism actually dealt with in RPG. It would be a lot of fun to have a questline involving picking sides between the stereotypical overmight subject and his liege lord. Sort of a Henry the Lion versus Frederick Barbarossa scenario.

If the PC gets a familiar, I really wouldn't want the type to be determined by your class. Maybe my paladin worships a death god, and a raven would be appropriate for him. Getting stuck with a falcon would suck.

I really dislike traditional healing potions, that instantly restore large chunks of your health. I'd much prefer slow-acting healing potions, if they simply must be in the game. And yeah, the toxicity bar from the Witcher games was awesome, and probably the best implementation of potions I've seen.

Planescape: Torment is definitely something you should try. It isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's one of the most perfectly realized visions in CRPG history. I also recommend NWN 1 & 2, but in both cases I'd recommend skipping the main campaign and going for the expansions, which IMO were much better for both games. The one thing that might make NWN2's main campaign worth playing is that the player gets a stronghold in it, and the gameplay elements that surround it will probably inform a lot of what they do with P:E's stronghold.

Well, I definitely want Renaissance-inspired architecture, just because I think it looks good. But in general, I'm fine with them leaving a lot of the D&D-style sword & sorcery tropes behind. Though, guns aside I think the Forgotten Realms is probably closer to the Renaissance than the Middle Ages, anyway. The general tech level is pretty high, and the degree of political development in most of its nations is a lot higher than in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.

As an aside, I have never seen anyone as happy with a romance in a game as one of my gay friends was after he modded Dragon Age to allow a gay romance with Alistair. Both he and his boyfriend (they played the game together on a huge-ass TV) ended up with a huge crush on that character.