BasaltineBadger

It was in also BG, I approve as it makes battles with weak creatures less quicker. They should at least add one mode that makes party members auto-attack and one that makes them stand still.

It's not DnD or SW so there is no reason to include "good" or "evil" choices or endings. Just choices and consequences like in Witcher.

It just needlessly complicates the game. Basically it's a price you pay when switching companions and I don't like it.

Turn-based combat only felt more intense to me, but real-time combat with pause is all-right, but easy to mess-up. It worked well in BG, but was boring mess in NVN2.

You people do realize that you are wasting your time arguing about a 10 pages of written text top being or not being included in the game. This is terribly stupid.

Dwarven wizard or cleric.

I'm for the special companion. The world feel more mysterious when your companions can be something your PC cannot.

This discussion is pretty pointless. I'm 100% sure that they wouldn't include them in game that is all about bringing back the feel of the old IE games.

I'm in for the 2D portraits, but they should do more player's portraits, because there was not enough of them in the BG2. If there's no money to make a decent number of them they should go NVN route and make a lot of portraits but use them as faces of other NPCs through the game.

@OP Players should benefit it they make the more beneficial choice and we shouldn't group choices into bad and evil ones. Sometimes doing what is morally correct should be more beneficial sometimes breaking the rules should give better results. When player encounters a choice he should consider what would be the best choice considering pros and cons not which choice fits his character.

But we currently know almost nothing about the setting. I mean, Fallout would just look like generic post-apo setting if we had the same amount of info about Fallout we have on P:E.

Is there someone else you think of who they could get that is more qualified? Because all the money raised is ultimately going to be go towards paying the people who make the game. with this money how many less know but equal talented artists could be paid? It's not like Ziets is some celebrity who has to be paid for his name, and I don't think you can just replace one writer/designer with another one and expect similar results.

@FlintlockJazz Again. Power fantasy doesn't mean not meeting opposition. Every power fantasy movie has opposition problems and struggles. Superheroes has villains who also sometimes kill the loved ones of heroes, and they sometime meet enemies that is too hard for them to beat (but they beat them later). Name me one popular power fantasy work where hero newer meets with opponents that seem too strong for him at a time, nothing bad ever happens to him and he's in control all the time.

Wrong game. This isn't D&D. There is still a class called priest which implies that priests possess unique form of combat abilities and I don't like that. Priests should be a profession like smiths or mercenaries, not classes. If you don't have "priest class" every priest you encounter can be a warrior, a mage or just guy without any abilities, with that class you can be sure that he'll poses some form of combat abilities. The same goes for other professions. If they added "nobleman" as a class you could be sure that almost every nobleman would be a member of that class while now member of every class can be a nobleman. Which is all well and good; I was just pointing out your dislike per "that mean that for example every priest have to wear heavy armors in battles, cast divine spells and use blunt weapons" <---Those are D&D limitations. About classes and profession differences, that's a hard one to split apart in the gaming class tradition, it seems. Is being a druid a way of life or a class? Monk? Or even ranger? Really, the only classes that make any sense by your definition would be only fighter and wizard. Possibly. I get what you're saying, but it seems to be a long tradition in fantasy RPGs that these things are mixed together. I wasn't meant that priest will behave like dnd one, just that every priest will behave like a member of priest class (which could mean using blunt weapons if that's the limitation) which means that other classes won't be able to do his job which I don't like. I also dislike other classes you mention. Priest can just be a magic-user who specializes in healing magic (you can call him white necromancer), Paladin a magic-warrior, Druid a nature-mage, thief a stealth expert etc. This would allow players to make druids who are stealthy warriors hen they are adventuring.

You seem to completely misunderstand my posts. I never implied that they'll play like wow or that there will be no flexibility. I just stated that they are lifted from DnD. Which by the way is completely unnecessary because the dnd class system (especially in 3rd edition) is deeply flawed. I also stated that it would be better if that saying that hey had to do this because it's the only choice is false as many RPGs (including 4th edition of Dnd) successfully implemented a different system. Rambling about projecting doesn't automatically refute my post and is also unnecessary. EDIT: Cyphers are psions and chanters are the only new class. Meanwhile the rest are the same as in another very flawed system which worries me.

Monks are not.

Wrong game. This isn't D&D. There is still a class called priest which implies that priests possess unique form of combat abilities and I don't like that. Priests should be a profession like smiths or mercenaries, not classes. If you don't have "priest class" every priest you encounter can be a warrior, a mage or just guy without any abilities, with that class you can be sure that he'll poses some form of combat abilities. The same goes for other professions. If they added "nobleman" as a class you could be sure that almost every nobleman would be a member of that class while now member of every class can be a nobleman.

@Loranc @cyberarmy The point is Obsidian just took base classes and implemented them in Eternity, while there is no reason for them to be there. Healing mage doesn't have to be a cleric, we don't need both cleric and druid, archer don't need to have connection with nature and monks are there for no good reason besides being a base class in 3rd edition of dnd. Not inventing some strange new classes doesn't equal copying everything from DnD. I wouldn't complain if they just took basic archetypes everyone use like fighter, mage, thief etc, but the class list is almost identical.

Torment wasn't. Baldur's Gate was about being a god's child, romancing elves and crushing powerful foes. In ID2 you stopped entire armies. If that's not a power fantasy I don't know what is. Actually if BG2 is a power fantasy because you play a god child then so is PST: it lets you play an immortal being whose stats can transcend human limitations. Its not though because you don't get to force your opinions upon others, your powers are portrayed as a curse often and you find yourself at the mercy of others. Likewise in BG your heritage is also played as a curse in many regards and you have people trying to use you against your will. These are not power fantasies, power fantasies are when everything is done to gratify your desires: you are granted awesome powers and get to do what you like while those you don't like are destroyed and humiliated. This is not true. People usually try to kill superheroes because of their powers yet, it's clear for everyone that they are power fantasies. Your comparison between Torment and BG is simply unfair. In Torment you doom people around you because your course, have to deal with results of your past action and in the end destroy being you brought into this world and be send to hell afterwards. In Baldur's Gate you save the world from return of the powerful evil god, kick asses of important heroes that tremble before your might, fight besides Drizzt one of the most popular DnD characters and **** elves. You can't call being a Baal spawn a curse when you meet new friends because of that and kick asses of everyone who tries to mess with you. Compare that with the MoTB ending where soul eating is a nuisance and you have to surrender in the end because Kelemvor is simply too powerful for you to touch. Can you see the difference between "doom everyone, clean up a mess you've made, go to hell" and "use your powers to save the world, possibly become a God"? It's like saying that Superman is like Watchmen because Luthor hate supes because of his powers.

I'm don't care that much about Torment but the classes are disappointing. It's a new system and there is no reason to copy them from 3rd edition of DnD or WoW. It's not like it's the only way to do classes in an RPG. Many RPGs had different classes Wizardry, Might and Magic, even the first Final Fantasy. I hope that at least they will be different gameplay-wise,

Torment wasn't. Baldur's Gate was about being a god's child, romancing elves and crushing powerful foes. In ID2 you stopped entire armies. If that's not a power fantasy I don't know what is.

I never cared about strongholds. If they include them they should be a major part of the story (like in M&M VII) not some place you go to get gold and do some quests.

11 classes is already a bit too much, I was pretty happy with 3 classes. I really hate classes like Barbarian or Priest. Because that mean that for example every priest have to wear heavy armors in battles, cast divine spells and use blunt weapons. Because warrior or a wizard cannnot be priest, even if they warship god of war, goodness of magic or something. Not to mention normal people. Class should describe your skills/fighting style, not your goddamn lifestyle.

How about a dark side of people being able to bring down whole cities walking around. One highly experienced adventurer can destroy villages after villages and face no consequences because unless he'll encounter other high level characters is untouchable. Most DnD campaigns should look like Hokuto no Ken, not LOTR.

Great old-school look, I like it very much.