alphyna

For some people, it will be their first game. Yeah, gamers don't pop up out of thin air with lots of experience in older titles. True. The problem is tutorials are often useless and teach trivial things (left-click to move, my ass). I think an easy first mission (with possible tooltips) is the best way of introducing the game to new players. Learn by doing! But. It seems like PE is going to be pretty hardcore and nostalgic-gamers-oriented. Is it really wise for the developers to outdo themselves while trying to smooth things out for first-time casual gamers? I'm not that hardcore myself, frankly, but it seems to me that this is a bit misguided. This is not their game, it's ours. While I certainly don't suggest making it artificially inaccessible, it seems to me that we may pass the playground and get straight to action.

I love crafting. I makes collecting mundane items into something potentially useful. Also, the possibilities are endless!

Isn't it the point? With crafting you can potentially turn generic loot into something worthy.

Once again I'm stunned by the community. I've never ever used map notes (except automatic ones, obvoiusly). In most cases I don't even know if such a feature exists in the game I'm playing.

The problem with fan translations is that they are very uneven. Some are awesome and some are terribly, terribly bad. I don't think it would be wise to use something that unpredictable in high quality product like Project Eternity. Although I think that allowing the community to patch the game with custom translations would be a great idea. This, this and this. I weep tears of blood looking at some fan translations. (Then again, sometimes the same applies to official ones.)

Acually, I've recenlty played PS:T with mods which exctract the voiceover not included in the original game (where you only hear the first line and a lil' bit more). And I didn't like it. The acting is fine, but I've come across a typical "movie shot after a book" problem: I like my imagination (based on descriptions, personalities and phrasing) better. So I'd actually prefer no voiceover at all or veeeeeery little of it.

Why? Being able to trade is basic usability, but being able to trade well requires points in Charisma. Being able to fight is basic usability, but being able to fight well requires points in Melee. Being able to remember an algorithm is basic usability, but being able to remember an extended one requires points in Tactics.

Durability in a game is an instant "never ever try to play a fighter since mages don't get hit to the head" for me. So no. I'm not strictly opposed, but durability doesn't add challenge to me, it just adds annoyance.

Do we need it in an isometric game? I thing voiced lines are better suite to emphasize the epicness of a fight. "AIN'T I AWESOME" for every critical hit and stuff.

At the risk of being annoying I want to point out that some features are mutually exlusive. Sometimes I actively object to something being included for that exact reason.

A good villain is not a villain at all, it's just someone whose worldview conflicts with that of a main character and who's determined, decisive or even cruel enough to disregard this fact. In DnD terms the conflict of good and evil is boring; the conflict of chaos and law is rather more interesting. Characters do not exist in vacuum, it's the setup which makes them. I would love not to hate the villain; I would love to be puzzled at first, and then I would love him to explain himself in deail, so that I understand. A rather mundane but still fine example would be an older brother from Fable 3. He is seen as a tyrant, but then we learn that he has a very good reason for being strict and oppressive. (Only in that case the way out is somewhat cheat-y, 'cause any evil turns less threatening in the face of bigger evil). What I'd rather see is someone like this, who, when confronted by the main character, explains that oppressiveness is his moral choice, and an educated one. Say, he sacrifices the lives of ordinary citizens to boost science of something. Why? Because humans are mortal, and the only way to somehow transcend that (if not literally, only metaphysically) is to learn the secrets of nature and generally expand knowledge. Or something. I want to join him already. Characters do not exist in vacuum. The villain is bound to the main character; they represent two sides of a certain dilemma. So it's not the villain who should be pictured interesting, it's the conflict which has to be real. When someone wants to take control over the world, it's not really a conflict, it's madness.

DAO's tactics system is a wonderful thing, partly because it's not so hard to grasp. I'm really not the best script-writer, I prefer doinf things manually, yet I enjoyed the tactics system immensely and experimented with it quite a lot (there's even a skill there expanding the number of tactics slots, and a very useful one at that). So I would definitely love such a thing in PE. It's a wise compromise between smart tactical combat and the joy of real-time massacre.

It really warms my heart to see the things that people care about. Wow. I mean, does it really matter? Progression does, the curve does, yeah, but the precise amount of experience? Well, I guess, if you ask me, curves like this are easier to follow. You just have to remember that each level is twice as hard as the previous one, so it's easy to calculate where you stand. So my answer is yes, I suppose. Still, what a wonderfully technical thing to desire.

Seems like you'd like to see a more strategic aspect to the house, what with all the class-specific upgrades and attacks. And while I agree it can bring an interesting angle to the game (and rebuilding is a very nice cosmetic touch), it also seems a bit distracting from the adventure at hand. Frankly, I would be torn between adventuring and having to keep in mind that my house/castle/whatever needs to be protected. On the other hand, I would love to see it customizable for my companions. Not class-based, though, but personality-based. If I could assign rooms to them and they would decorate and rearrange them accourding to their ideas of a nice place, that would really be interesting.

I think it's unneeded. In practice it just means you have to visit town before wearing any armor. It just complicates the process, while not adding anything.

It's a classic RPG. What is there to tutor?

Russian. But please oh please hire someone who can do a good literary translation. Like me. It just hurts to see a good text butchered.

A human fighter I like? I think I was sold way before anything specific was known about PE.

Oh how glad I am to read this. A lot of people ask for companions who despise the main character (or something along these lines). What they miss, I think, is that if a companion really couldn't care less about the main character, he wouldn't really be fun to travel with. There'd be no arguements, no criticism (when I think someone's stupid, would I bother to tell them?), no witty banter. As for the influence: I want it badly. Mostly because I've seen it done wrong in modern games, and want to see it done right. To gain influence over someone in DA:O, you need to say what they like and be in accord with their worldview (so if Morrighan is all for natural selection, you should be too, otherwise nothing good's on the horizont). So you end up maneuvering among what to tell and whom to take. Which is ridiculous and doesn't work like that at all. What I probably liked the most about PS:T was that characters reacted favourably not to the 'likeable' option, but to the 'smart' option. The whole Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon quest is actually telling Dak'kon he doesn't know a thing about his own faith and his own head. And that's an interesting thing to do, and also — that's something that would get my own favour and interest (if a bit Stockholm Syndrom) in the real world. And that's something I really want to see in P:E.

And I don't like sandbox-y stuff. When someone has given me a quest I want him to freaking wait 'till I'm done and not go anywhere. It's me doing the work, show some common courtesy. Sheesh.

If it's really just contrmpt, why is he in your party? Well you don't have to like a person to work with them. I just think it opens up more opportunities to role play if you have NPCs with different opinions on you and your actions and conflicting personalities can be really fun to explore. Also, I'm tired of NPCs kissing my arse. True. But I've recently finished "Loren — The Amazon Princess" and now it's hard for me to shake the feeling that if a character bitches too much, he probably is the main romantic interest, which is meh. Everything can be beautiful when well-done, though

More text — but mainly dialogues. Lore is fine, but what I want is discussions, arguements and viewpoints. So not "more companions", but "deeper companions", I guess.

Surely, if the same works for all quests except the most mundane (collecting pelts and stuff can surely be postponed). The elven lady is close to being raped? Clock. You've seen a mysterious stranger walking by? Clock (surely you don't want to lose his trail!). You were asked to work as a courier for some royalty? Clock (it's an important man, you don't want him to wait!). Orcs are swarming the neighbourhood? Triple clock — ors are hot-blooded and it definitely won't take them long to attack the city! I think that urgency should come from storytelling, not from some arbitrary game mechanics slammed into my face. You should write the quest in such a way that I would want to finish it here and now to learn what comes next. Otherwise it's lazy writing.

My favourite antagonist is nonexistant since my favourite protagonist deals with a complex set of problems and characters which are not flat. None of them are the Source of All Evil, and my character is intelligent enough to see it and not just pin all blame on one antagonist.

It's hard for me to play an evil character, true, so I rarely do this. BUT. When you make a "good" moral choice, it doesn't really feel that good if the alternative is moronic, rude or the (Attack) button — 'cause it's not a good choice, it's an intelligent choice. Even when choosing good I want to see that evil has its merits — and its logic. Perhaps tempting logic. Perhaps I can try it once, just to see what happens... That's how evil should work, not by "kill and loot" logic.