rjshae

Whilst normally I find Josh to be extremely balanced and straightforward, I can't help but feel that tongue might have been just a little bit in cheek during that post. I sense a touch of "The only reason we're not doing it is because we don't have the resources to do it, and the resources we're lacking are people who want to do it". No, he states they're lacking the resources to implement them well. There's nothing tongue-in-cheek about it.

Speaking of hiding from the "facts", can you provide a link to these polls? I'd like to see if it was an unbiased poll of randomly selected gamers or a self-selected group who have a particular interest in elements of romance. Thanks. I know you'll think the polls were biased, but you can find them all if you do an Advanced Search on the PoE forums. Use the key words " Romance Poll". There are about 7-8 topics that will come up that you can read Okay then, I'll have to consider them biased polls since the audience is self-selected. Thanks.

Speaking of hiding from the "facts", can you provide a link to these polls? I'd like to see if it was an unbiased poll of randomly selected gamers or a self-selected group who have a particular interest in elements of romance. Thanks.

It makes for a much more interesting story when the character's plot is more centered around a particular weakness, instead of a weakness just being used as a trade-off at character build time. For that reason, weaknesses are probably more useful when implemented as core characteristics in your companions.

I do hope you're not implying that either of the Icewind Dale games had better plots than Baldur's Gate II? The IWDs were churned out in the quickest time possible, and in terms of plot, characterisation and companions are not much use as an example for anything. EDIT: Sorry, Josh. You're taking my example out of context, so clearly not. I'm saying the original poster used the BG series as the justification for including romances. I'm pointing out that the game is intended to be the spiritual successor to the IE series, not just BG. Thus the justification is logically weak in that regard. A good story can be written regardless of whether it includes romances. Because of the budget constraints, adding writing about romances reduces effort in other areas; it's a zero-sum game. What I'm hoping for is a well-written story that has at least some amount of emotionally compelling context. It isn't necessary to include romances to accomplish that point. If they wanted to include romances, then fine. If they don't, then that's fine as well.

My concern here is the stereotypical nature of the response; it isn't really exploring new ground. How about making a society that views such rare hybrid births as a godsend? (Much like we can have a certain fascination with the birth of white tigers, for example.) Why not explore how that belief system could be taken to extremes, much to the detriment of society?

Absolutely spot on. Not quite. Were there romances in the Icewind Dale series? No. I'd say then the idea is only half baked. Better no romance than a weakly implemented story line. Spend the resources on the remainder of the plot.

How long until we get a troll romance mod?

This post makes me Hungry Like The Wolf. For sleep. Because it is 3am. Sure. *COUGH*Duran*COUGH*Duran*COUGH* Get some sleep, bro.

Yet another romance thread. Heh.

It might be fun to have an easter egg for the player that blunders into every trap, or fails to solve every puzzle, in a dungeon. Like a blockhead helm with some special ability requiring exceptionally low intelligence...

I volunteer Failion to write the agitprop lore...

Every such major element of reactivity just multiplies the cost of production. It might be better to limit it to just a few bigoted individuals and assume everybody else has accepted a diverse world in which soul-based magic can turn anybody into a powerful individual.

They should kill off the main character just so you don't have to import him (or her) into the sequel?

Listening to all of us go on about PoE is steadily turning his hair grey...

Isn't a levelling mechanic just a simulation of a character gaining in knowledge over time? What's the big fuss? Another futile argument on the nature of role-playing games.

Making an item super-hard to find doesn't really help the game any. It becomes something you only find out about because you read the walkthrough. A clue or two about the location would make it more interesting. I.e. "rumor 'as it that Baron 'olds a gem of power, though none of 'is servants 'ave ever seen it. But I'll bet you a crown piece 'e 'as it stashed away somewhere in that manor of 'is..."

That idea has been debated to death and the loudest voices seem opposed; not that I don't fully support the idea. The primary reasons given for opposition to rideable mounts are: (1) bad implementation of mount controls in other games, (2) it wouldn't work well for exploration of areas used in the IE series of games, and (3) implementation would require additional animation and graphics. But it has been positively mentioned for use as a non-rideable creature to be found at the party camp site.

In that case I would argue that bookcases should be even more rare. A valued book might appear on its own stand, or inside a protective chest. Scroll cases might be a little more common, particularly in a wizard's enclave; plus they would yield more of an antiquarian look.

Close...

Another common pitfall: repetitive banter. Characters with a limited set of blurt strings that they say over... and over... and over again.

What does "too much loot" mean anyway? It seems purely a matter of perception. I suppose there's a group of players who prefer "low magic" gaming, which would make magic "rare" in the general population. But rare for your average Joe doesn't necessarily mean rare for an adventurer. Your character is entering fantasy venues where magical power has necessarily been concentrated, so the likelihood of encountering magical loot is greatly increased. The only way to fix the supposed "problem" is to eliminate magic entirely, which isn't an appealing idea in a fantasy genre.

My understanding is that the class-based approach is favored in this game because it encourages synergistic tactics. That is, the different strengths and weaknesses of the party members need to be coordinated for best effect. If every party member can be anything, then there is less to differentiate them. Class-less works great for a single character game, but for a party-based game, specialties allow for more interesting tactics that can make the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

It would fail to fulfill its claim to be the spiritual successor to the IE games, so it would flop. I think it would be better to play a game designed around the concept of "not killing", rather than trying to funnel a combat-centric game into a pacifist adventure.

It's very easy for people to say "take your time" and get it right, but taking your time also takes more money. Hopefully the budget won't become a serious issue late in the development, otherwise they may need to find investors and split the rewards.