HansKrSG

Though I agree with you in that we can't change games to cater to everones phobias, that last part was just mean. Phobias are not logical, and he can not help it. Telling people to "grow up" out of their phobias? Don't be a douchebag.

Too many choices. And some of them are not mutually exclusive. I don't want timers on main quests, and I wouldn't miss it on sidequests either. I do want the world to have some feel of going on without me, and I do want any major action I do, to matter in the game world. Anyone not as lazy as me that can find the right choice for my opinion?

I tried out auto-pause once, didn't like it, so I went back to manually pausing.

I see many good posts here, and most seem to agree to the main point, that leather armor wasn't as common as fantasy literature/games would have you believe, but not unheard of. Tanned Leather was a bitch to make in the old days, you used feces and piss to make it, and it took a lot of time before it was ready, so I am sure padded armor was an easier choice of armor, if you couldn't afford plate/chain/scale.

I think Irenicus' dungeon is too small to be of any annoyance. I have played through Bg1+2 (With the BG trilogy mod), more times than I care to admit.

I go with the crowd that feel that its scary and funny that Call of duty actually have about 8% of the votes. Planescape: Torment and BG 1+2 are two of my absolute favourite games, so I am happy with the poll results.

Making a world where the rules are consitent and where things feel logical within these rules I feel is extremely important. That things in this world work the same way as in our world, and fits our history, is not just not important, I feel its important that they do diverge from how things are in our world. They are not making a simulator for medieval europe, even though some people seem to think that. Making a balance between believability and going away from "realism" is sometimes hard, as many of the ways things have been done in history, is done that way because it works. Forgotten Realm, as the OP's example, does somewhat work within this balance, but as the world is defined by dozens of authors, things don't always mesh up very well.

I want stats that we can increase now and again, either automatically by use of related skills, or by player choice, getting points to put up every nth level. Though I am a roller in the IE games, a lot of frustration can be skipped if you have point buy instead.

I partly agree, but think of the real world. Its much easier to kill people (magic missiles, lightning bolt, fireball or guns, grenades and bombs), than it is to heal people. Anyone can point and shoot, only those who study hard can heal, and even then, there are many things we don't understand, or can't cure today. I can easily see how magical forces can do strong but ultimately blunt tricks, while knitting flesh, arteries, veins and nerve endings, and regenerate lost blood, removing things too small to see (viruses, bacteria, etc.) is a much harder feat. That said, I do feel that the approach is missing something, but I am curious how it will actually be played out.

Except then you will have no idea whether it is utter stupidity or an extreme insight on the character's part. So they should indicated that some answer is due to high intelligence or wisdom or spot skill or what have you either by markers or by additional narrative in the dialogue box. Same goes for bluff. You can be sincere about your threat to rip off someone's face and eat it for breakfast or you can just say it for scaring them away. PST had lots of dialogue where you could be truthful or lying/bluffing and it seemed very fitting. No, I disagree. I don;t need that hand holding. I'm pretty sure that I can come to the conclusion myself that one dialogue option seems a smarter one than the other. and if I don't, why should the game be so unchallenging that I shouldn't think about what I choose to say? Not everyone is as smart as their character. And I am not jesting when I am saying that. Playing as more stupid than yourself is challenging, playing as smarter than yourself is impossible without some help.

I hate "spawns" of monsters with a passion. I am all for monters reappearing in logical places, but not monsters generating all over just because. Random encounters, sure, respawns, no. I love being able to "clean out" an area or dungeon, when monsters always come back, I feel I haven't accomplished anything.

There are a lot more languages than what the game is going to be translated to. Personally I don't want the game translated to my language (Art works better in its native language, translations never do the original justice), but there are times when things that can be obvious to a native English speaker, are things I will struggle with. I understand most words in the English language, and the words I don't understand I can often guess the meaning of, with contex. Now, if one of these words is an answer to such a riddle, I would not be able to guess it, because it simply isn't in my vocabulary. I understand that I could get a dictionary to try to find the proper word, but that sounds like a boring thing to have to do.

Although Obisidian didn't make the IE games, many of the same people who did are working for Obsidian at Project Eternity. If you have played BG2, I am sure you agree that many of the boss-battles there indeed follow your chriteria (especially when doing the expansion)? I do agree though, challenging boss fights where you must use all your resources and make good tactical descisions, sounds like a good plan.

I feel this has been done successfully in the Fallout games, so should be easy to get it to work.

Though I agree to the general problem where noone dies if the main character stays alive, having people go unconsious instead of dying actually happens in real life as well. Even PnP RPGs most often have an unconscious state before the character dies, so going this overboard about this, just makes it look like you are having fun with us, saying things you don't mean. (AKA; trolling)

Sorry then, I didn't recognize the song quote, nor have I read/heard that Josh has said this. No need to get worked up about it, I didn't think my post should have come across as more than a casual comment, not a heartfelt angry rant. EDIT: I searched for the song with this lyrics, and got: City of New Orleans, written by Steve Goodman. I played the song on my Wimp (Think Spotify), and have never heard it before, then again, I don't really like most country music.

Well, part of the problem comes in when they design quests around the quest marker instead of treating it as a once in a while hint system. Another problem is that GPS markers destroy an entire aspect of gameplay involved in questing. That is, it totally removes actually searching and questing. I think it depends on the quest, if it is something that could shown on a map like lets say "we need to destroy these seige weapons" then you can show them on the GPS, if it is something like "go gather x number of this" then definately not I highly doubt we will get many "go gather x number of this". If not I will be very disappointed.

I think the people of Obsidian should see this poll if they haven't already. Saying "Good morning America" at the start of the last update, when (according to this poll, which is not neccesarily accurate, but probably at least give a hint) most of the people on these forums are from Europe, seems kinda silly. (I know he says "and the rest of the world" after, but still). A smarter thing to say would probably be something like; "Good morning backers", or "Good morning people", etc.

The worst part is, I think the great 2-handed swords often used in rpgs are silly as well. Still, I don't think the presence of 2-handed swords, which were in actual use, would do anything negative to the game. Lets say the enemies and NPC's of the world really seldom use these weapons, then if someone wants his character in a single player game too use this weapon, why not? I would agree that it shouldn't be common, but I can't agree that it shouldn't be an option for your character. I think in basis we almost agreeing, just not quite

I really wanted to press like on the OP's post, just for the first part about XCOM:Enemy Unknown. I don't think there will be the same hassle in PE. In all IE games (except Torment, duh ) , I always load when someone dies, ressurection spell at your fingertips or no, and I never got so frustrated as I got with the flawed system in XCOM.

I hope they can continue making their own games, without the influence of a publisher. I won't dive into the piracy debate, but if games were paid for before they were created, like with kickstarter and similar systems, at least the publisher knew how much they were sure to get, and could calculate risk based on that, instead of how much "they could have made"*. *which is impossible to accurately calculate. Nice video with Neil Gaiman btw, got even more respect for him now. Gearoge R.R. Martins stance on fanfic disappoints me though, but thats a whole nother subject for a whole nother forum.

I think it would be difficult to this well in a 2d game, but if there is a good way of simulating flight, I say go for it. That said, Daggerfall (The 2nd Elder Scrolls Game, and the best of them in my opinion), have flight, in a 3d-world as big as Great Britain, with no invisible boundaries, it worked very well. EDIT: There was a limit on how high you could go, so I guess there was an invisible boundary.

Hmm, that completely depends on the level of the character compared to the power of the items I would say. The proper gear at low levels could make your character twice or even thrice as effective, while at max (or high) levels, the gear should probably at most make the character 50% more effective (or so). Another way of tackling this, to make it not so dependent on this, would be to make magical items more effective when your soul gets more powerul (if it can get more powerful, I don't know), or something like that.

Thats just one of the original ways to tacle such issues that makes Torment one of the best games ever made (if not, the best game).

Sounds like they were mostly used against pikemen, since hacking out breaches in defenses would likely throw them at pikemen/spearmen (those were the most common defensive troops), but the overall point (supported by your quotes) is that this was a specialized weapon meant to serve certain roles on the battlefield. This is similar to how knights used lances on horseback, for a very specialized function. But expecting to see an adventurer carrying a lance or a greatsword around as an all-purpose weapon is completely different. From your quote: "However it would become unusable, as soon as the opposing forces collided with one another". Well, while adventuring, one would guess that you often have to fight inside buildings or caves or dungeons or tightly packed forests or groups of people, and such a weapon hardly seems practical. Also, it seems to be mostly an offensive weapon, as its increased size and mass would probably put the wielder at a disadvantage while defending/parrying blows, so if faced with an oppponent using a smaller sword, if he managed to dodge/sidestep/block your initial blow, you would probably be at his mercy. Though I partially agree with you, the melee of a full battle, is something completely different from the melee of a few people (which is the basis for rpgs), where you can move backwards, and to each side. Maybe we can meet and do a one-on-one battle, where you use a longsword, and I a 2-handed sword, and lets see where it takes us?(If you are a HEMA veteran, I will give you the victory, it was said in jest, truly, don't hit me with your sword please ) I also disagree by using human history as a basis for a fantasy role playing game. Some things were done because it worked better, but some things were done because of other reasons, like the cruciform crossguards. In a world where small parties roam the country killing fantasy monsters, a 2-hander could very well work for those who use it. Late edit (instead of making a new post): another quote from the page I used in my first post on this topic; "Accordingly, just as with its shorter single-hand cousins, the late 15th and early 16th century two-handed greatsword was not a crude excessively heavy bludgeoning weapon but a fairly agile and balanced weapon designed for close-combat in war and occasional duel."