BasaltineBadger

That would only result in unnecessarily slow game. It would be a chore to play Witcher or Torment with a feature like that. There is no point besides forcing sightseeing on player. it only depends on the map layout, rly I guess it wouldn't be a problem if cities were tiny. Otherwise travelling through the same location many times would get really annoying really fast. IE games are one of the few popular RPGs that don't allow you to jog through time and they still allowed you to always run in PS:T.

If romances were included in the game it would be better if they were the evolution of Fallout and Vampire system than Bioware system that Obsidian also used in the past. In the first model you become romantically involved with an NPC it makes you do some semi-quest and you get various profits from the relationship. You sleep with Bishop's daughter and can rob him, you make the girl a ghoul and she search items for you. The whole thing is really ambiguous as it's not clear if PC is really interested in an NPC or just using him/her. In Bioware/Obsidian model you almost always romance with party members who bug you from time to time and if you chose the right answer they like you more which leads to some sort of finale (sometimes including blue alien asses). The first way is more natural, makes more sense and is more integrated in the game that's why I think it's better.

I'd hate if the game relied on luck in such important matters. First of all guide reading people are spoiling the game themselves, they are adult people and we shouldn't try to make them play the game the right way. The game should rewards players for being smart not lucky. The way I'd see randomization would be slightly different. You get the choice and some clues that would suggest which option is better. You can always make the best decision if you are observant. Here's the catch. Clues are shifted around every time you start the game and the best option is different. If you are investigeting something, the clues and real killer are also shifted. My other idea. In BG2 many times you had to fight enemy exactly two times, first time you see what the enemy's weakness and lose and the second time smash him while being protected from the spells he cast and being prepared to counter his defenses. You could shake things up. Let's say you are fighting the boss. You cannot save after entering his lair and every time you enter the battle is a little bit different. He starts casting different spell, he's protected from magic instead of weapons, his minions are no longer ogres but goblin archers etc. This would make the battles much more challenging.

Just play the beta and skip dialogues. Read everything you need to know from the journal. Or just focus on testing the Endless Paths.

@ That would only result in unnecessarily slow game. It would be a chore to play Witcher or Torment with a feature like that. There is no point besides forcing sightseeing on player.

I'll be happy as long as I'll be able to tell what is going on and who uses which weapon. P:E is low budget project that is going to have a lot of content, so authors shouldn't spent much money at non-essential stuff.

Not enough blood. You can explore dungeons if you'd like.

I don't really think that this idea fits what P:E is shaping up to be but there already greedy fantasy merchant simulator:

this is exactly the type of player attitude EA makes money on This is the exact type of player Bethesda makes money on. Fan of hiking simulators. Never confuse him with an RPG enthusiast. they wish! didn't even play through New Vegas, despite all the good talk around it besides, there's not just "always-run", there's actually "auto-run" shortkey so morrowind clones are something to be mentioned the least, as an example of "walker" fan's preference also, fast travel is what guys-in-a-hurry should rather be favoring, as one might assume so, Bethesda >and< EA $cha-ching!$ Fast travel was in IE games and was the only way to travel from city to another location in BG 2 and FO 1&2. Are you one of the people who thought that Witcher is not an RPG because it didn't let him walk through the city with some specific camera mode on? What does running has to do with fast travel anyway. I don't even know if you are serious or just trolling, judging by pointless assumption and coloring random words I will assume the latter.

this is exactly the type of player attitude EA makes money on This is the exact type of player Bethesda makes money on. Fan of hiking simulators. Never confuse him with an RPG enthusiast.

That's only your opinion. I wouldn't mind a game with good combat and good but lineal story.

I hate retarded equipment scalling. The good thing about DnD based games was that they were limited in how ridiculous they can make equipment they barely got to +5 in BG2, while in many other games you start with broken sword +5 and end with supreme slayer +9000. Scaling of towns also go with it. Somehow the major city you encountered at the beginning only offer you moderately strong weapons while some village at the end has lots of super special artifacts.

The emoticon selection here is not adequate to express how I feel. But know that I am not amused. It's not like BG 1 & 2 were bad games just because you didn't get a slideshow at the end.

@Hormalakh It's an RPG, not a life simulation and there should be some simplification, just like in other areas. It's not like you can't feel sorry for leaving them if you didn't lose gold because of it.

And what exactly would they do if they see a monster? Brew some mead, grow bald and then write a book about it? However here I would like monks to have a somewhat wider variety of abilities which are closer to spells than to fighter moves. Lets face it - an ideal monk should be something like a Jedi but with no lightsaber. Use the knowledge about the universe they gained during meditation to do kill it.

I'm not following entirely. The concept of Boss Battles that you need to dodge and move to the side and stuff like that or....? Just reflecting on the point that "boss battles" are a gimmick dating back to the early arcade machines where you end a wave of opponents with a "boss" battle. It's as kliche and formulaic as QTE's and minigames. Like something that climbs up on a pedestal and in a booming voice, that shatters glass, pronounces: "I AM A GAME, STOP BEING SO IMMERSED AND SNAP OUT OF IT!". It would be nice to see at least a bit of deviation of game Standard Template Construct #1147 and do something other than encounter with above average opponents as part of the "chapter closure" process. Just because it's old it doesn't mean it's not good. And it's natural that when you are trying to stop someone's plans he's going to defend with all his might. What was Sarevok supposed to do at the end of BG? Feel bad about himself and go cry in the corner? @Aoyagi I don't really get what RPG bosses have to do with DMC and acrobatic.

Running all the way, this is an adventure, not sightseeing, I don't have time to slowly walk from one place to another.

How was it better than PST, FO or Arcanum? It had no meaningful C&C, the world did not react to your accomplishments and you could not alter the story. I know it had shinny GFX, but please. It had combat that was actually challenging and fun to play, and good encounter design. It's not a visual novel, c&c is a nice addition not a requirement for game to be good. Just like romances by the way.

No saving during combat encounters.

As long as river go from mountains to the ocean I don't give a ****.

There is no reason to have them defined but I would still like the option of dealing with situations in extreme ways, even though it may not say anything about your character's alignment. Its quite liberating when you think about it since you no longer have to play at being the good/bad guy. What does being extreme has to do with being good or evil?

I'd prefer if shao-lin guys were replaced with wstern-style monastery monks

Dragon battle was the real endboss, Letho was a during the second encounter.

I meant the final bosses, a sorry loser you have to kill to see the ending cinematic.

Boss battles in past Obsidian games were pretty disappointing for me and I'd like to create this topic to discuss what a boss battle should look like. For me: -Boss should ideally be an unique creature or at least have unique model/sprite, it would also help if he was bigger than normal characters and physically imposing -It would also be nice if he had some unique attack or ability -He should also have many forms or battle should have many stages (for example fighting players in normal form then healing and calling for sub-boss to join, then transforming into a dragon) -He should be assisted by minions as it makes battle more interesting (and allows players to use all of the characters' abilities) -He should be very challenging