alphyna

Neither. I guess I (somehow) want something more... Christian? God or gods should be incomprehensible. If human mind can understand a deity, it becomes more like a high-level adventurer — really great and powerful, but still little more than a very, very strong man. And I feel that gods should be different. What do they want? Do they even exist? People invent rituals trying to guess their purpose, but it's just that: guesses. Sometimes priests claim that they've had a reveletion, but it's up to you to decide what that means (if anything at all). Clearly some forces exist, but can they be talked to? Personified? Understood? The most interesting thing begins when you open a dialogue box with someone you didn't avan know posessed the ability to think in human words.

What about not having a final boss? The catharsis doesn't have to go down to killing, you know. And now for something more realistic: no rats. No spiders. No gobling. No kobolds. Being able to change your companion's (sub)class through dialogue. Unusual magic schools, where spells are grouped by non-trivial criteria. "Inquisitor" is a very good example of that. Unusual items, like tattoos and eyes in PS:T.

I don't really get the last question. Who would vote for one-piece armor in an old-school RPG? (And who did?) That said, my companions' armor is another thing entirely. While everyone obviously hates DA2's system where you can't even switch the armor, only upgrade (and yes, I did absolutely love it), it has an important advantage: the style. I would very much like for my companions to maintain their style. If some lady prefers black then she can only wear black armor — or all armor becomes black when she puts it on. It's logical, useful (yay for color-coding!) and gives characters personality. And now for something more controversial. I'm probably a minority here, but: frankly, I tire of having to check if some medium helmet can be worn by someone in my party. It's just tedious. So I'm actually for some restrictions for companions (limited armor inventory in general or simply one-piece). Then again, it's obvious I'm desperately lonely in this opinion.

I would rather not have children at all. Then again, I don't really like them in real life.

I'll take anything which is not rats, spiders, wolves, bears, goblins and kobolds. Like make an evil fox at least once or something. (But weird alien creatures are way better than foxes, so yes.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't really old-school. I also don't think it's that hard to write a story explaining your character's training. Oh, and also I absolutely don't want to start as a random villager, I want my character to have some solid background. That said, not having to choose your class here and now is a good thing because you never know how useful is your chosen class in a particular game. Personally I prefer well-spoken characters who solve quests through talking, and that always brings me to a mage/thief dilemma. What are dialogues in this game based upon, Charisma (which is more thievy) or Intellect? And while we're at it, is thieveng even useful, or do you become rich so quickly it's just a waste of stats? And if it's not classic DnD, what the hell do these 20 schools of magic even mean? Yeah, I'm all for experiencing a bit first and choosing later, but somehow I don't believe this'll be implemented in PE. Like I said, it's just doesn't feel old-school enough.

I think this needs a poll. (Not a fan of IT here.)

A bit of a rant here. I am wary of the term. The word "soul" has certain connotations: it's linked to something spiritual, mystical or even religious. And while these are all interesting topics, what I'm personally more interested in are problems of the mind. Not in a Freudian psychoanalytical sense; what's interesting is that mind is hard to grasp, it's elusive. Also it's rational, while souls are generally linked with emotions and moral standarts/innocence. I'm a bit tired of the problem of "the purity of soul". It brings objective moral code into the picture, and that's boring. What I'd like to see are souls which are neither good nor bad, neither pure nor dark, and which are also elusive. I want a study into the nature of souls. Can it be separated from the body? Can my soul be separated from me, if only as a thought experiment, or is my soul me? Can it evolve and change? If my soul is somehow bad, do I become evil, or can I change it? I want a twist, I want something different from your standart plot-device, explaining everything with a simple "Well, his soul is like this". And I want a character who thinks that all that soul stuff is bull****.

Doesn't it make the final murder all the more satisfying?

Killing them any time? Well, I'm not strictly against it, but it seems like a stupid thing to do. If you don't like a companion, just exclude them from your party. Death is a strong narrative feature and should be used appropriately. NPCs are less characterized, less important, and thus the "kill anyone" approach is more reasonable. But companions? I think any (permanent) death among them should be incorporated into the plot, and the general rule here is "dialog first, death second". What's the fun of murdering someone if they don't even talk back and just become your generic enemy? So I can see two ways: 1. Murder any time, but you can only initiate it through the dialogue (and need to hear their side first). 2. Murder during a certain event or at a certain plot point. It's simply more dramatic. I understand that some people just want to have boundless murderous fun, but, well, I play games a bit differently.

LOL. Well said! You are being sarcastic, right? Er... not really, no.

In the world of MMO's? - Yes, that's mostly true. In the world of real multiplayer with 2-4 friends playing together the master campaign of a game like Baldur's Gate? - Not really. Well, frankly, I can't call my multiplayer experience vast. It's practically nonexistant. But I don't get it. I want a game where my character has a backstory. Like, he's the son of a king. Or a one-of-a-kind immortal amnesiac. Or Dragonborn. Or just a random guy in some very unusual circumstances which would make him special. How is it possible to have a bunch of immortal Dragonborn princes? It doesn't really make sense and hurts the story. The moment a character controlled by a real person (not by AI) joins your party, you become a generic adventurer, which is boring.

Agreed.

No-no-no. I want a good story-driven game and I want to feel special. There's no special in the world of multiplayer.

Yep. My vote does here too. Actually, I don't even need voiceover — I can very well read a well-written text myself.

St. Petersburg, Russia.

Oh, and also: the best characters are always Tragic Comic Reliefs. Charming, funny, cute, cheerful — and really, really dark and hurt. YEAH.

1. someone really weird, borderline incomprehensible, but communicative — and written elegantly. Nordom is probably a good example: he doesn't really understand human stuff, he wants to learn it, but not in a "ooh, i'm a spirit, show me your human ways" way. it would be interesting if this character had some strange and quirly rituals and refused to explain them at first. like he can't eat red food, or he's tone-deaf (but somehow sings beautifully), or he always starts walking from the left foot. the point is his eventual explanation must tie with the lore neatly, but unexpectedly. 2. a tragic companion, the cause of whose tragedy was the main character, who obviously doesn't know it. the companion doesn't tell him (for good reasons — he knows that it wasn't the main character's desire to hurt him), but he can't help his own desire for revenge. drama ensues. 3. a really asexual character. aforementioned Nordom (technically asexual) was obviously male. I want someone who doesn't understend the idea of gender at all.

Ah, I don't like the most popular option. At all. I want meaningful choices and deep story, and they just can't come together with replayability on a greater scale (not talking about small quests and details here). It's just that... PS:T has plenty of choices, yet it's pretty linear, which allows for great elaboration and really engaging stories. But you can't have TWO differently engaging stories after the choice (or I've never seen it done), it just doesn't work that way! And I'd definitely prefer one good story to two meh stories. Take plot-twists. Say there's a door, behind which lies the scroll which says that Darth Vader is your father. So what do you do? Do you give the player the choice as to whether to open the door? It's stupid, 'cause it's a non-choice, really. Opening the door is always more interesting. Do you sell your faithful companion into slavery? Do you side with A or B? Do you pursue your companion's quest? Do you take the matter into your own hands or leave it to the NPC to decide what to do? These are all non-freaking-choices. I don't sell him. I try to find peace or stay inbetween (or get both). I do. I do. Except for the second, all these choices are always obvious. They're pretending to be a choice by providing an "interesting" option and a "boring" one. I'm yet to see an interesting-versus-interesting dilemma. (In PS:T, my favourite game, you may choose to side with the rats or with the undead. My result? I don't give a damn about both, 'cause the game tells me both can be omitted.) I think I've actually got to the point now. Everything that can be omitted instantly becomes less interesting, 'cause if the authors have devised domething really good, they wouldn't let me omit it. I want it that way so I don't miss the awesome stuff. So what I want is this: don't let me choose what to do! Let me choose how to do it and how I react to this. If my character sees something mysterious, for god's sake don't pretend my character has a choice to walk past it, 'cause that's simply not true. The player's mind doesn't work that way. No, let my character come closer, look at the mysteroius thing in detail, and then let me choose what he thinks: was it a wise thing to do? Is he too impulsive? Was this choice awesome? Let me talk to my companions about this! Please, please, please, I don't want shallow choices.

I'd HEAVILY argue that point. DA2 didn't look better artistically. Nor do you see to remember DA:O correct if you call that one photorealistic. Then I'd argue your point, although what's the point of arguing aesthetics? Still, DA2 has style. Like, everything has these triangular lines and angles and patterns. The shadows are sharper, the faces are more memorable. You may not like the style, bit it looks... complete. Whole. It creates the feel, the atmosphere. DA:O, on the other hand, was absolutely generic and boring.

BioWare tried that already... It didn't work. Worked perfectly for me. That's one of my favourite aspects of DA2, really. It's more complex that "I want to have sex with everything that moves", obviously; I just find the setting where sexual orientation is virtually nonexistant (and thus not an issue) really interesting.

To be precise, surrealistic is kinda more like this... "It's fine to fart in front of girls, in fact, if you fart louder, they will consider you much more attractive." "Girls are considered more attractive if they have thick, bushy mustache and armpit hair" "It's fine to slap people, it's how we say hello in Eternity" ...and many other mindbending social interactions If that's logical ang forms a general picture, then yes, this is exactly what I want. Once again, like in PS:T — it's fibe to remove your own hand 'cause the border between life and death is somewhat blurred and mutilation in Sigil is common. I don't want random quirkiness, but a set of weird morals is the best variant possible for me. Definitely better that "ooh, we have rape, we are mature!"

This is a good (if likely irrelevant) point. Cannibalism is really just unhygenic, not particularly evil. Even in those cultures that kill people in order to eat them, the victims are usually just people who the cannibals would have killed anyway (because they were at war or whatever). That's the wording of the poll, really. I want cannibalism, yes, but I don't want it to be generally presented as a problem. Let my character (and others, of course) decide if rape, murder and stuff are bad. I just hate it when games try to be gritty. "Look, a murder!" In PS:T you bashed enemies with your own hand and plucke eyes out on a daily basis, and it wasn't a big deal. And that is precisely what I want: not making something a big deal in that world just because it is in ours.

There's a huge difference. Games can use different approaches: either the main character is predetermined (complete with his gender, sexual preferences and all), or he is customizable. Actually, I prefer the first option, but it's painfully rare. TNO is predetermined. The main character of PE is customizable. So when I play PS:T, i play TNO; when I play PE, I play me. I've no problem with TNO loving someone I hate, but it just doesn't work that way in PE. Thus if you don't give me a character with given background and stuff, I want options (romantic interests among them) to choose from. Thus I love DA2's approach.