BasaltineBadger

I am amazed how you "hardcore" crowd project your own reasoning onto others. That many of you want gameplay and as little of possible of this all boring kind of "distraction" doesn't mean every other one has similar views. First and foremost I want a story. If There is combat but story is still more important and has more attention given - fine. It's a matter of priorities, not how exactly one would rate game as having too much combat or too little. And if you're telling me to read a book for story, I'll tell you to go play World of Warcraft or whatever MMO for combat. It fits to just the same degree. But IE games are vastly superior to WoW in terms of combat, while plots in RPGs are not that good when compared to books. RPGs are usually stories about combat. You go to one place, defeat enemies and proceed. If you remove combat you also remove a vital part of the story. Without the combat you just go from location to location and hear bits of the story which is just a book that's annoying to read, you would be much better of playing a classic adventure game. And there is nothing "hardcore" about actually playing the game.

I really hope that races will be more different from each other than giving +1 to one stat and -1 to another. For example, in the Bloodlines different clans had special advantages and disadvantages other races couldn't gain and different sets of powers, in ADnD rogues of different races got bonuses to different skills depending on their race. Dwarves for example should get some special stances for fighters and spells no other races could get. I also hope that everything else than standard DnD starting race will be included. It doesn't matter if it will be orc, werecat or pixie. But they are rarely playable and integrated into society. There is great difference between Vampires in Bloodlines and their counterparts in DnD, same goes for Orcs in TES, half-ogres in Arcanum and minotaurs (Tauren) in WoW.

People keep saying this, have you ever TRIED it? Go ahead, play through an rpg with the starting armor/low level items, never upgrade it, see how far you get. It's not an option "not to wear it" except within a few small levels. Like it or not armor is something you have to upgrade (Within reason) in rpgs, you can't just "not wear" armor you don't like if it's a lot better, especially if you are playing on the harder difficulty. How is it taking the roleplaying out? To me it seems to be doing the opposite. Your paladin for example. Instead of being able to upgrade his "paladin" armor which fits his character you instead are FORCED to wear the "black/evil" looking armor or to have to be extremely underpowered and constantly dying to higher diffculty/level enemies that drop you fast because your armor is underleveled for that point in the game. MEanwhile if you had this ability, you could "keep" the look of your paladin and not be forced to wear items that is out of character for him, BUT you wouldn't be "underpowered" or penalized for doing so. Is there any game where you had to wear "evil armour" to succeed? Are Paladins really suppose to care about their looks that much? If evil armour less evil if you paint it white? Why do you even care what your character looks like? Paladins probably won't be included in the game. In many rpgs the higher lv armor could have "spikes/skull" motif's on higher lv armor (Because to many people that look is "Cool."). The Paladin was his example, I was merely using it as a reverse point of how it would likely play out in an rpg. Why would be out of character for anyone to wear armour with fancy ornaments. You don't automatically become evil when you wear spiky armour and I doubt anyone would care. If you thing your character care about stuff like looks use different armor, if you think he prefers practicality use spiky one. Role-playing when the game world doesn't care is just larping. You could argue that fighting naked should be a sensible choice because your think your character feels limited by wearing clothes.

People keep saying this, have you ever TRIED it? Go ahead, play through an rpg with the starting armor/low level items, never upgrade it, see how far you get. It's not an option "not to wear it" except within a few small levels. Like it or not armor is something you have to upgrade (Within reason) in rpgs, you can't just "not wear" armor you don't like if it's a lot better, especially if you are playing on the harder difficulty. How is it taking the roleplaying out? To me it seems to be doing the opposite. Your paladin for example. Instead of being able to upgrade his "paladin" armor which fits his character you instead are FORCED to wear the "black/evil" looking armor or to have to be extremely underpowered and constantly dying to higher diffculty/level enemies that drop you fast because your armor is underleveled for that point in the game. MEanwhile if you had this ability, you could "keep" the look of your paladin and not be forced to wear items that is out of character for him, BUT you wouldn't be "underpowered" or penalized for doing so. Is there any game where you had to wear "evil armour" to succeed? Are Paladins really suppose to care about their looks that much? If evil armour less evil if you paint it white? Why do you even care what your character looks like? Paladins probably won't be included in the game.

Just write the things that are common in RPGs but you wouldn't want to encounter when playing PE. Rules: -no things that are almost certainly not going to be included in PE (like action gameplay etc.) -no romance discussion

How can you roleplay saviour of the universe if you skip the whole "saving the universe" part.

I doubt there will be many differences between different armors of the same type, there were none in IE games.

They may be alive but they are the shadow of their past self. That's why I've said they should add customization. @Reddie: Why would you even play RPGs if you don't like combat. If you want plot and nothing else read a book.

Races I'd like them to add in non-random order: -goblins -cat/bug-people -pixies -halflings -giants -orcs I would hate to see half-elves for obvious reason and gnomes, since they are is almost no difference between them and dwarves then it comes to anything besides stats.

It's not a lot of options we are asking for, but a simple UI toggle element or some form to take an already existing model and use it in place of another model. But this is entirely pointless. Armours have certain look to allow player to know which armour is everyone wearing. It would make as much point as making a tank look like a Jeep because Jeeps are pretty. You can't use MMO argument since it makes sense in MMO because other people look at you and you want them to praise your sense of aesthetic. Nobody look at your character when you are playing single-player RPG besides your girlfriend/siblings and they shouldn't be too picky.

I wonder how was that possible that classic adventure games died out since they are basically RPGs without combat. They have should just add some non-linearity and some customization, call them "exploration games". I wonder why nobody had that idea before. As for the godlike races, they sound too much like their DnD counterparts. I'd love to see some updates about how their races/classes differ from standard DnD cliches.

EDIT: I somehow missed the existing thread sorry.

Romances are also part of the overall influence/reputation system in every Obsidian game they appear in. In AP or MoTB you gain influence points with EVERY character, some are romancable but that doesn't change anything. There is simply no difference between influence and romance there. You get more influence over Mina and she can sleep with main character, you gain influence over other characters and they are nicer to you, explain to ma how are the two different. And how one require implementation of some minigame while the other is a part of a larger system. Baldur's Gate doesn't even have point-based romance system, the romance just stops if you say the wrong line, which is not different than any other conversation in the game.

dont you think it is a bit strange that you want children inthe game for added realism but in your next sentance you negate that added realism by making them unkillable? Is having unkillable children just as unrealistic as not having any at all? Further: You can make the game more realistic by adding the possibility to pick flowers or pet little bunnies and kittens. Is this the "wrong" kind of realism, which would explain why nobody demands it, or is it just not as fun as killing kids in game? Please show me where i said killing children in a game is fun? My argument is simply that if you add children to a game for realism then they should be just as vulnerable as anyone else in the game. personaly i dont care whether children are added or not and even if they are added and are killable i will try my best not to kill them. but adding children to the game then making them invulnarable when everyone else is killable does subtract from the realism of the game I did not state that you like to kill children in a game. I was asking why the ability to kill defenseless children in a game is so much more important (or "realistic") than to, say, pick apples from a tree. Because it makes no sense to have them survive when a villain shoots a fireball into a party in the crowded street, or to have them somehow not take any damage. There are no instances when not having an ability to pick flowers would lead to a nonsensical situation. Also, character being killable is their natural state in most RPGs so we shouldn't make them immortal unless there is a reason to do so. People being upset about children being killed is not a reason. There are people who are upset when women/civilians/their favorite character gets killed and nobody makes them immortal because of that.

If martial training allows you to draw the power from your soul we may assume that warriors will get some spells or spell-like abilities. I think that they will either be able to cast some low-level combat related spells, similar to Witcher's signs or buff themselves in combat using mana, for example making their next attack extra powerful or increase their speed for a short period of time. What do you think?

I thought it was obvious. Every argument could be applied to influence system: it's a minigame, it has nothing to do with main story and you can befriend people in real life so there's no reason of including it in the game, also as I've said romances are identical to every other in-party interaction besides theme. You could easily modify romance with Aerie into a subplot about helping a mentally disturbed party member, not much different than helping Kheldorn or Anomen with their issues. You are also using another strawman argument assuming that people who want romances want Bioware-like romances and that they want some relationship simulator/ dating sim with is not necessarily true. Also having romances is not changing a game into a romance game, Game of Thrones and countless other books had romances and they are not porn for women. I don't understand why are you always arguing assuming that your opponents want wish-fulfilling DA2-like romances with animated sex scenes and not romances similar to those in MoTB, KoTOR 2 and Alpha Protocol which would be more logical since you are on Obsidian Forum not BSN.

But how? It's entirely a matter of taste, and you can't objectively prove that romances are good/bad/necessary/unnecessary. We could as well argue about inclusion of dwarves. And it would go like this: But it's true that people are a little too emotional about a bunch of optional dialogue lines.

You can ignore them if you like.

Just make it like they did it in KoTC. There is a number of campfires through the area and you can rest by them once. Just make them reset when player leaves the location.

That depends entirely on a game balance we know nothing about. Mages could have ways of protecting themselves from spells yet no way to protect themselves from gunslingers.

@Torgamous: We'll see who's a tinfoil when your thunder throwing god will turn out to be six squirrels with a robe and a ring of levitation.

@ Nivenus You can still be atheist in a setting where deities exist. Just because someone throw a thunder at you he doesn't have to be an immortal being who governs forces of nature, he can be just a powerful spirit or a group of mages.

Other topics generate less animosity. I really doubt people could argue for dozens of pages about depth of backstory for example, but thanks to Bioware's latest achievements every mention of RPG romances generate instant ****storm.

I also hope that people from Obsidian will learn from other games like Runequest how to do proper Gods. The most common mistake is making people/nations who believe that all gods exist yet worship only one. That's not how polytheism works, you pray to the god of the fertility when you are farming and to the god of war when you are going to war, you don't just pick god of war for your whole life and then say "well I'm ****ed" when you decide to go fishing.

@Metiman: you are basically arguing not against romances but against point based influence system and romances doesn't have to be based on that. And they are a part of a story that some people finds fun so I don't know what's wrong with that. I understand that you are for removal of all interaction within the party because all of your arguments could be applied to them as well. Classical strawman argument. How hard it is to understand that people who like romances are the people who liked romances in past Obsidian games and Baldur's Gate 2 and would like to see more of them and not lonely creeps. Also, the whole "people who want romances play the game only for romances and don't care about other aspects" is retarded and not backed-up by anything but the creepiest people form Bioware forum.