alphyna

Now that would be really awesome! Better than an actual romance, really. Especially if I get to choose how my character reacts do this. Does he cheer them? Is he bitter and jealous? To what extent? I don't want the events to be centered around me, but I want to have a say in them, and I want my character to have emotions. That would be really great.

I also think that makes sense. Perhaps there should even be a degree of the mega-donors getting some sort of special privelege within this system? Nah, I don't think so. Money doesn't make creativity. it shows commitment though, and that was the point of my suggestion

Come on, don't misrepresent my words. "I paid $10, so I can be one in thousands of people to express my opinion on the level of nudity" is more like it. (Actually, I also think that the developers shouldn't listen to the audience too much. It's their game, not mine.)

I would actually prefer for the majority of characters to be bisexual. It's just more handy. Like in real life, in games I fall for people, not classes/alignments/sexes. So the solution is obvious. Since I'm a minority here, though, I'll have to agree with the OP. It's actually an interesting topic, I think. A modern game without a gay option seems somewhat lacking and dated (to me, at least). But if PE strives to be old-school, isn't that exactly what they should be doing? Old times were not only great for their games, they were also more bigoted. So removing lesbians/gays would be a rather original way of catching the feel, wouldn't it? (That's just thoughts, though. My opinion remains: bisexuals. Everyone. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.)

Perhaps there could be a system implemented where, when you reach a certain level, lower-level monsters wouldn't even approach you? That would also be a solution, yes.

Erm. I want the first, brutally realistic, option, BUT: if cannibalism is accepted in a certain culture, I don't want it to be presented as a problem! No underlying social work here, please. And if someone views, I don't know, charity a problem ('cause it's counter-darwinian or something), then I want charity to be presente like one. So I guess my answer is "surrealistic", but not really. What I don't want is black-and-white morality, that's for sure.

Yes yes YES.

While PE is not PS:T's spiritual successor, I hope it'll be not so far, I really do. I mean, classic old-school RPG is great, but I want to talk the main boss to death once more in my life. Please oh please.

Being harsh here: I think only kickstarter backers should be allowe to vote, otherwise we'll end up with 4chan: The Game, won't we? Surely I know that some people may be broke, but then again, it is probably humanly possible to scrap a buck just for this privilege. Obviously it's not about the rich being able to vote, just the means of protection from randomness.

I love PS:T factions, because they have the most important quality: diversity. Not in the "lotsa quirks" way, no. What I mean is this: I think it's boring and oversimplified when all the factions can be brought together in a single table. Imagine the world with a certain political problem (say, elves are at war with dwarfs) and the idea of gods. So you get a 2x2 table: pro-elf believer, pro-elf atheist, pro-dwarf believer, pro-dwarf atheist. It's logical, and that's what I hate: real life doesn't work like this. Oh, and I'm oversimplifying too: all the "choose your own deity" systems also work like that. In that case to choose a faction you only need to perform two steps: choose if you believe in god and then choose, which one. Boring. In PS:T the factions are interested in different matters. The Sensates want to experience the world, the The Xaositects want to be random, the Godsmen want to make the world a better place through hard work (oversimplification once again, but you get my meaning), the Indeps want to be independent. Sometimes their beliefs clash, but mostly they don't, and that's the interesting part. Your character is rarely extreme, most likely he just leans to one side. But what if you are an independent and chaotic guy who wants to experience the world? It's not the "this god is for the angry people and this one for the calm" choice; it's about priorities. If made like this, factions have to be convincing. The choice has to be hard, and it can only be achieved if the factions are not really mutually exclusive in their views, only technically, so that you have to think really hard as to what's more important for you: experiencing the world or pure chaotic fun. Oh, and also: obviously I'm against being allowe to enter all factions at the same time, TES-style. It removes the choice completely. Also I don't care about quests and loot. I want to join the faction because I agree with them, not because they give me a hammer.

Herecy here: well, upscaling low-level enemies is not really THAT bad, 'cause having to fight through them can be really annoying. Just sayin'.

Absolutely PS:T. My life is misery 'cause years pass and it remains unrivalled. Oh how I want PE to rival it!

No-no-no. If I recall correctly, the game's going to have a combat pause (or am I just remembering Avellone's interviews?). In any case, I would very much like it. A combat pause is always breaking the suspension of disbelief and making the game less realistic and more symbolic, bringing the mechanics on the surface. And I like it like that — I like that time itself is symbolic, nonexistant. Like in the book: you read that three years have passed and you believe it — no need to close the page and wait to "feel" it. The timeflow in such a game is virtual and depends on the events (be it quests, fighting or story progression), not on some clock. Which is all fine and good, unless broken by an urgent quest. That doesn't add immersion, that breaks it by sudednly changing the rules. Can I view my inventory while the clock is ticking? Is it pause? And if yes, what's the goddamn point of the clock?

Actually, I only agree on the last point: a big yes for non-combat stats. I want to talk, sneak, convince, charm and eavesdrop all the way! Figthing is less interesting. As for the free world — no. Well, not strictly, but free world actually contradicts a good story (in my opinion, which is certainly subjective). If any character can die, then none of them are esessential (or essential characters are somehow artificially protected fom this). And I'm more interested in a character-driven story, the one, where everyone you met is special and essential. So I'm all for "you can kill anyone", but not for "anyone can die on their own". I know that you're probably not speaking about important characters, only about background NPCs. But that's another thing: I don't really care for them. Like, at all. Aging and dying? Why? All these passer-byes (I suspect that's not spelled like this) are like animated background. I would like the ability to influence the world on a greater scale (destroying cities with everyone inside, yay!), yes. But I want it to be about me, my decisions and my character. Or about the story (so yes, if Curst has to slide, it slides, I'm fine with not being able to prevent this). Not about some abstract immersion. Guess our mindsets are really different here. I hate sandboxes (and everything sandbox-y). I don't want to be an ant in a giant anthill with its own rules and life, I don't want a sneak peek. I want a good story of my character. I want bounds and restrictions. Not saying you are wrong here, no. I just want it to be heard that there are diffirent opinions.

Ahem... that kiss with Annah in PS:T?

I see your point. I'm not actually against stand-alone romances. I'd love them if there also were stand-alone religious discussions, philosophical debates, heated arguements and drunken banters. Just for the sake of flavor and character (and lore!) presentation. But yeah, guess I'll have to go back to reading books.

I don't want guns. I don't want the absence of guns. I want setting. If the developers think it needs guns, it's fine by me, and I don't really need justification. Frankly, fantasy-mixed-with0steampunk settings are less common, so I guess my vote goes to "yes".

I actually find it weird how many people here state that they can't get attached to pixels. So... how do you roleplay, people? How do you watch movies (it's just a bunch of pixels too, you know)? Emotional attachment to imaginary figures is absolutely natural. When I play an RPG, I love characters, hate characters, want to spend time with characters. If I don't, this game sucks.

I want communication and character interaction, mutual influence and strong feelings among the characters, and I actually believe that romance is inevitable if feelings are strong enough. So yeah, I want romance. Not the "I like you, we've had sex, so now we're seeing each other and I'll be the one you meet in your spiritual quest and marry in the end" kind; the "your interpretation of the quote from my sacred text was so brilliant and fresh that I've kissed you, and I don't really know what's it called, but please don't go away" kind.

Oh, and I've forgotten the most important thing: the companions should have the ability to change. The reason I love Dak'kon so much is probably because TNO changed him, influenced him, and he abandoned the ideas which were prevoiusly absolutely solid for him. That's the most interesting part of communication. (And not on the level of "I hated slavery, but now I'm kinda sorta fine with it"! I want elaboration. I want discussion. I want my companions to be strong and clever, but not rigid. They should listen and they should be interesting to listen to.)

1. The most important thing about companions is probably their ability to express themselves. A lot of people here talk about "depth", but what exactly is depth? Is having a childhood trauma deep? No. Is having a tragic biography deep? No. Is having a strong, but complex set of views, which cannot be summarized in one sentence, deep? Well, perhaps it is, but without the execution they are nothing. One of my favourite characters ever is Dak'kon. I would like to point out, though, that both his story and his personality are actually quite simple (spoilers ahead!): he is stoic, he is exhiled, he was tricked into slavery which he hates. Thus he is now sad. When retold like this, he actually sounds cliche, I think. But it's not about the story, it's about the execution, about how we come to know him. There are no rants, no precise moments which define his personality. You have to guess what's imporant based on circumstantial evidnce, so to speak. He doesn't really tell you that spiritual and philosophical debate is important for him, but that's the way of upgrading his stats, so it's not that hard to guess. So: execution. A good companion resembles a real person. Do real people start ranting about their worldview the moment they meet you? If the answer's yes, then they are either nuts, stupid or really traumatized. Which is all perfectly fine, as long as it doesn't mix, and more "normal" characters remain, well, normal. 2. Actually, on the topic of leaving the party: I loved DA2's rivalry. I see the point of those who felt differently, but, once again, I measure characters by real-life standarts. Imagine you have a friend. You are bound to him either by a mutual quest or simply by common experience. And then you notice that his worldview differs from yours. Do you leave him and storm away indignantly? Well, that can happen, yes, but the circumstances have to be extreme. And I mean really extreme. Murdering someone in the world where murder is accepted isn't really that extreme. Banishing their only childhood friend whom they love dearly from thr realm probably is. I also hate it when leaving the party is the main means of expressing the character's negative attitude towards you. The best thing about PS:T? Characters talked. Talking is great, really. It's interesting. You thing I've done something despicable? Tell me about it! I may feel guilt, I may change my mind, I may understand the world better. Storming off sucks when compared to talking. 3. Inter-companion interaction. What I'd love to see in a game, for example, is a companion being romanced not only by the main character, but also by another companion, so that the main character can lose. Not "let go" and choose someone else, but lose if s/he doesn't try well enough. Not only the main character sould be able to influence those around him; everybody works like that! So just let it work. 4. And another thing, which aforementioned Dak'kon is actually a counterexample of. Every companion has a quest and a major problem (or a set of those) which interests him. What I really hate is when said problem comes directly from the character's inherent traits like race, class or upbringing. An elf? Well, the elves are at war with the dwarfs, so he hates them. A mage? Well, then he fights for the freedom of mages. A slave? He hates slavery, duh! That's oversimplification, and that's precisely what robs characters of their depth. What I would really like to see is characters whose quests come from their personality. A well-educated thief who got into trouble while robbing a library, 'cause he couldn't help stopping to read certain rare books. A taciturn dwarf who loves birds and would stop in the middle of the forest to listen to them every now and then. A mage who hides his class 'cause he really likes performing tricks — and he's good at that, but no-one would believe that no magic is involved knowing that he's capable of it. Quirks, habits and personal preferences make a character. If their interests come directly from their background, then that's what they are: a background. So it's not a person with a name and all, it's just a generic elf, mage, slave. And that's really, really boring. (Sorry for the long rant.)