Living One

They are free market research for the games developer, all of the information on what people do in the game is available to them. Dragon Age 2 was done like this,with data from the first game gathered as you describe.

You know what would improve the campaign?Confirming that cooldowns are OUT.

So...Dragon Age combat then. Well that's it. I was trying to decide between the $140 and $250 tiers. Now I won't be contributing at all. An old school game with cooldowns. Nice. Unless MCA or Tim Cain can convince Sawyer of the wrongness of them. I'll wait to see if cooldowns are officially ruled out until the end of the kickstarter, but this game is dead to me now. Enjoy your Biowarian twitch-based popamole kiddies. I'll go back to replaying BG2 and anticipating Wasteland 2. I feel for you and I feel the same way. I really think cooldown is the worst possible solution. Same for me.I'll just cut and paste my post on cooldowns again and hope that comment doesn't mean they'll be in the game. 'Now,my only real concern are cooldowns.What about them?I have to say I'm not really a big fan:they put an excessive amount of focus on timing in a system that focuses (mostly) on different kinds of tactics(the pause function admits this by putting limits to a RT system to allow said different tactics to come into play) and said timing element feels really tackled on because it's a separate counter unrelated from the merits of the specific ability(basically if timing is related to the duration of spell-casting or how much it takes for a fireball to land that's fine,but cooldowns offer a 'detachted' timing mechanic).I also think they're not a good way to stop the player from spamming attacks because a more organic system(spell counts,mana) can do that without the problems above.Furthermore I don't think it's a good way to balance super-powerful spells since I think such concept,well, should not be in games(the spell should have advantages and diadvantages on its own,without need of a feature that,again,I feel,is tackled on.)'

They shouldn't hire any VAs,instead spend the money to get Herve Caen on board and model every NPC in the world after him including dwarves,women and children.

Can't this thread get stikied?

That sounds nice,I think. Now,my only real concern are cooldowns.What about them?I have to say I'm not really a big fan:they put an excessive amount of focus on timing in a system that focuses (mostly) on different kinds tactics and said timing element feels really tackled on because it's a separate counter unrelated from the merits of the specific ability(basically if timing is related to the duration of spell-casting or how much it takes for a fireball to land that's fine,but cooldowns offer a 'detachted' timing mechanic).I also think they're not a good way to stop the player from spamming attacks because a more organic system(spell counts,mana) can do that without the problems above.Furthermore I don't think it's a good way to balance super-powerful spells since I think such concept,well, should not be in games(the spell should have advantages and diadvantages on its own,without need of a feature that,again,I feel,is tackled on.)

Well,judging by Sawyer's comment on the other thread sounds like Vancian magic won't be in.I hope at least cooldowns are out though.

I'd prefer Vancian(will explain when I have more time) but i can live with mana or something else.What I really ****ing detest,though are cooldowns.

Knowing what your'e about to face does not equal metagaming. After all, if I'm going into the trolls lair, it's not metagaming to prepare fire spells. I absolutely agree. But without metagaming you don't often know what you're about to face, especially when it comes to the really tough battles - even if you try to keep your eyes open and pry for information. Honestly, were you prepared for Kangaxx or Twisted Rune the first time? Did you reload, fix your spellbook and go back? Did it make a difference? (My answers: no, yes and yes.) Of course, if you've already finished the game, you'll know exactly what you're going to face and you'll know exactly what to memorize. And D&D spellcasters - aside from sorcerers - will benefit from that vastly more than any other class. But what's wrong with fixing the spellbook that way?If you face a well designed enemy learnining the lesson the hard way can be fun too(if it's an intresting enemy it should be fun enough to study it and learn about its weaknesses even without winning thus the gameover should be pretty easy to swallow).

You are asking the wrong question. Noone here is arguing for first- or third person view. What I am arguing for is that they will use 3D instead of 2D backgrounds. Still isometric! Still static camera! I don't even need a zoom function, although it would be nice. If you render a 3D world, you can do a lot more things than in a 2D painted world. For example, it is much easier to implement day-and-night cycles. It is much easier to implement physics (try making a 2D object tumble..). It is much easier to implement shadows, hills, running water, animated doors, destructible environments, etc. The list can be made a lot longer. But let's take an example: imagine firing off a fireball in the middle of a forest.. at night. Imagine seeing the orcs you hit ragdoll around, hitting trees and shrubbery as they tumble around from the force of the blast. Imagine seeing the trees closest to the impact center catch fire and light up the night. Imagine seeing the trees closest to ground zero actually fall outwards and break from the power of your magic. Imagine seeing the surviving orcs run screaming and burning between the trees, casting long shadows before they fall over and perish. Now imagine the same scene in 2D. Sure, none of the 3D scenario was in Planescape: Torment. None of it is needed for a better role-playing experience. But I still want it in my game. Are you serious?Not even games with AAA budget can pull that off and you expect a low budget one to make it?

Would like this feature too.Also there are plenty of ways to justify this lore-wise while still leaving a main character despite generating more doesn't sound hard either,not sure why people are so concerned about that.

Another LARP thread

I agree that Oblivion didn't have good cities but to be honest I didn't find Vizima to be much either.It was... not interactive enough?Aside from talking to quest givers(wich weren't many)there wasn't much to do.Anyway a city that feels big,alive and with lots of things to do would be welcome. EDIT:DAO/DA2 cities sucked too ofc

Overall I'd agree to give shields(and other equipment) various advanages and disadvantages based on type though it's more because it makes for intresting gameplay choices rather than realism.

Thank God it's over,then.

Happy birthday Your majesty MCA!:salute:

Is this problem Dark or Demon's?

Sounds legit. It wasn't your OP which ever had me concerned, fwiw. Indeed.It's that other people don't realize the conflict there can be between game modes and game design.They think it's just a matter of adjusting HPs because it's what modern RPGs do and that games like DAO or Witcher get hardcore on hard mode.But the corridor level design,the crappy 'some HPs + basic attack' enemies,quest design based on quest arrows and other stuff for the 'i like games just not playing them' crowd are still there.

You people just don't quit with that do you. Remember they are not obsessed by it.Like for real.But super seriously.It's just that we are mean and want to ruin their emushunal engagement.

No,but seriously this thread is hilarious: -romance threads get banned for a while -op:'mmm...let's how can i sneak romance discussions in thread'. And they pretend to not be obsessed with this feature.

I'd definetly like this.It adds importance to party-selection outside of combat.

Hurry someone kill this thread with fire!Then nuke it!Then throw David Gaider over it to cover all traces!!!

To properly romance horses you have to dress like a suave gentleman. True.Hopefully Bioware will deliver another truly emUlsHonallY enGajing romance. Oh wait wrong studio

Btw why are people asking for so much dress-up options when the first mod they'll download will be the 'nude mod'(followed of course by the 'dragon/horse **** mod')?

I see interesting similarity here. On BSN it was used as an argument too, that because there is plenty of cutscenes and all ME3 is anything close to "story-driven". Well, no. That there is a cutscene doesn't mean it actually adds something to storyline. In my opinion, in the games you've mentioned they only serve as an entry to next shooting level. The very beginning is a good example: BSN users boasted that there is "solid 7-minute intro to the story", only that it doesn't ADDED anything, it basically just sets up as a fact that "now you have to go there and shoot". Same goes for romances (yes, I am a proponent of romances, but not when they are there at the expense of the plot, not as a part of it). But that's a matter of opinion, I guess. I only want to make it clear that no, people who dislike combat may not come from any sort of "new" cRPG fanbase, they liked Infinity games just as you, but for different reasons. Well, it's hard to answer a chunk of text that was meant to be read in different thread and different context, even if it's somewhat relevant. Citiations are used to back up a point, not to make a point. And I have answered the point you were backing up (I think?) The thread was 'just how easy will easy be'(I think..at page 3 or 4 but I don't remember)but you don't need the contest with that post.Also I posted a further a further clarification in response to Stun.But, no matter what dumbing down/putting skip gameplay buttons remains bad.