SanguineAngel

There's this weird idea that a straight or homosexual character could only possibly be FOR a straight or homosexual player respectively. These characters aren't you. Just because a character you see or interact with on screen is homosexual doesn't mean you have to emulate that person, or they have to emulate you. It is possible to relate to other people. It is possible to enjoy all works of fiction about people who are not you, who do not share your proclivities or your ethnic background. I doubt you get up in arms when a game features a blonde or brunette, why are you suddenly upset that there is a fictional character that portrays a minority of some description? A character is a character. It's the joy of fiction. A character can be anything or anyone I don't know what limitations you're talking about? I'm talking about freeing themselves from stereotypes or using sex to sell and writing interesting and believable characters and relationships

Hi Grim, just to address your last point. I can't speak for everyone but for myself, it's a lot like a romance in any other form of media. It's not a fantasy - I do not imagine myself in that position and wish I was with this fictional person. Instead, I like characters and stories and I admit, I'm a sucker for a romance. The difference with a game is not that it's suddenly about me but that as a player, we have the ability to interact with the story and perhaps connect with the fiction a little more. I find that fun. Although I will agree that traditionally, romance has been handled poorly in games, especially RPGs - I don't see that as a reason to stop trying. I see it as a reason to try harder, do a better job.

And it was still better than pretty much any other RPG that features relationships

This area of the game is the biggest opportunity for the Devs to actually go ahead and present really mature themes. I don't mean sex and gratuity. I mean genuine, respectful portrayals of gender and sexual orientation and relationships with meaningful and emotional interaction. With ramifications beyond your direct relationship with an NPC. Other companion's reactions, a change in NPC's reactions during other events. Go to town.

Well, some well known games that have had this problem in my own experience: Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Icewind Dale 1 & 2, Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 1, Fallout 3 (not sure about fallout 2 - I seem to recall it wasn't such an issue?), Mass Effect 1 & 2 (3 had some interesting ideas in this regard). You could make money scarce - and I believe that it a part of the solution - and you could make high barter skills necessary but then the issue you would face is that not all players would focus on barter skills and so would need more money. But money is scarce so you would need to make purchasable items not necessary so that players who don't barter aren't at an unfair disadvantage. But if purchasable items aren't important, then why buy them? Then you've got the problem of what to spend your money on - so you end up stockpiling it and hey presto, rich as sin again. I think you're going to have money, you need viable money sinks. As I understand it, that was sort of the idea behind health and mana potions in the first place but it was crude, not very effective but never really got developed. @Thraxen, you and I appear to be in accord I think. Rewards for investing money should not be more money - just compounding the issue. It should not be better equipment either, making fights easier as, if fights aren't balanced for that then fighting is too easy and boring, so you are punished not rewarded, or if fights ARE balanced, then if you don't have the funds then you are stuck. It should be something tangible for the player. So, new content seems like a good alternative. I like your expedition idea. Similar to Dragon Age's dwarf plot but in a far more involving and practical way. The more things you invest in could alter the course of the expedition

Yeah, any perks should have to be balanced out by a flaw. I like it. It always helps make your character feel more your own.

So, I've seen some topics on Vendor trash, inventory management and the weight of gold. It's sparked an old niggle with me: the value of money in RPGs One thing that's always bugged me in almost any RPG is that you're either a pauper or a prince. There's no middle ground. And your stash of gold rarely reflect the contextual fiction. Peasants beg for a few coppers but the cheapest item costs a few gold. The cheapest items cost a few gold but you don't need them. Weapons are available to buy but you will invariably find any item purchased pales in comparison to something you pick up off your fallen foes, at least until late game. Potions are available, but virtually pointless, especially when you pick those up of enemies too, or you even have regenerating health. Soon, you've stockpiled enough money to purchase the entire kingdom but you're still doing odd jobs for 10 gold pieces. by the time you've reached the point where you want to buy that 10,000 gp sword of awesomeness, you've got 2,000,000 and it doesn't make a dent. I'm sure this all sounds familiar to a lot of us. So, what might be some solutions? For myself, I have often thought that narrative events might prove enjoyable & worthwhile money sinks. Alternative solutions to quests such as paying off ransoms or whole new quests where you are required to spend some of that hard earned cash. Improvements to your player home/stronghold. Perhaps even being held up on the road. These need only start being triggered or become available when you have certain amount of money in the first place. But could effectively keep your level of wealth at a reasonable level.

Automatically using the highest rated character's stats limits the player's ability to have his party operate suboptimally. If my PC is an egotist who thinks he's better at everything than everyone else, then he probably should be speaking, even if he's not very good at it. Similarly, if my PC lacks confidence (I played a Warden in DAO who had crippling social anxiety - it was a ton of fun) then he might never want to speak, even if he's the best choice available. Having the game mechanics decide things like this for us robs us of roleplaying opportunities. I completely agree! Also, similarly, it'd be nice to see some of the NPC personalities shine through if they are spokesperson. Being able to choose who talks lends your entire party character

Well, I think there's a missing option here. I hate level scaling but I do think it's a bit lame when you reach higher levels and everything is too easy. I don't want to feel godlike. I still want combat to be a risk at any level. So no level scaling, but I think the combat mechanics need to be developed to make combat important pretty much whoever you fight. apart from rats. Please don't make me fight rats. Rat's aren't combatants.

Thanks for the update guys. Sounds very exciting. I was particularly excited to read about companions. It sounds very similar to BG2 or PST in that regard which is great, since I can't remember an RPG that did it better than those two. I do have a query - you mentioned choosing the player portrait in character creation. Just for clarification - will that mean artwork portraits like in Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate & NWN1? I certainly hope so! That method proved infinitely more atmospheric and personable than the 3D representations of later years Also, what Cantousent said sounds ideal. I think the highest personality rating has always been traditionally used but actively choosing would allow the player a far more active role, make conversing more of a gameplay mechanic, rather than bland exposition (allowing you to make use of other character skills & stats in conversation) and would also make having a party outside of combat actually relevant.