rjshae

A patient player can do this in any IE game as well (barring areas you can't return to). I don't think our economy should be balanced around the expectation that players are impatient. It might be interesting if the weight of your stash effected your overland movement rate, which in turn modified the likelihood of an encounter with bandits, robbers, or hungry beasts. Large loads might also attract the interest of tax collectors, who would want a cut of the loot, or the toll gates of lords who are looking to equip their own militia.

Even in exploration mode, I think you still want to at least see the status of the party members. Any lingering effects should be clearly visible. You would also need to know the time of day and possibly the sky conditions if weather changes are important. Finally, the dialogue window may also be needed if the game is particularly chatty about what you see. Hence I don't think you can completely do away with the interface elements.

I don't think you want to have too much overlap between the unique capabilities of the classes. If Fighters get spells at all, they should probably be associated with the martial arts. For example, grow a pair of magical arms and fight four-handed; blur your weapon so it is harder to parry; create a temporary cojoined twin so you can fight back-to-back with yourself...

Yes it's an okay idea, but you must admit this is a corner case. If they implement it, a function key should suffice. It shouldn't take any screen real estate away from the more common actions.

I looks to be pretty difficult to come up with a good design that maintains balance, a consistent motif, doesn't take up too much screen real estate, and is highly functional. In that regard I have to say that I'd have a real issue with some of the alternative designs posted here. It isn't necessary to have larger portraits because you just need to see enough to be able to identify them and click the icons with a mouse. Also, I don't believe the spell icons should dominate the interface. Finally, many of these designs look inconsistent and, well, kind of ugly. Anyway, just hoping for the best in the end.

Okay, replace all instances of "logic" in my argument with "mysterious patterns/mysterious logic/supernatural metaphysics/etc", it's still not the same thing as how clerics/priests get their power. Sorry, I can't help you.

I don't really know what you're going on about. You accused a deityless cleric of being the same thing as a wizard, and then I listed the differences and lore between the two. Wizards use logic to cast magic, clerics don't, it's as simple as that. Once again, it makes a huge difference. Wizards perhaps use some type of mysterious pattern to cast spells. Is that logical? Perhaps it uses a supernatural metaphysics that has a mysterious logic to it, but we don't know that. Ergo, your axiom is unprovable and your argument is baseless. You discuss this by making assumptions about my thought patterns and using absurd extremes when even your own statements are not grounded in reality. A huge difference? No, this is just silly.

Perhaps, but isn't that a legitimate reason as well? Definitely. To my eyes the dark control bar along the bottom creates a weight that draws the eyes downward like a misproportioned picture frame. Perhaps a gap or two in the bar would give the illusion of a taller display with a more natural aspect ratio? Or they could split the character/icons into a relocatable vertical box along the left and center the control/dialogue a little more.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the real reason people prefer the L-shaped interface is because it preserves the (golden) aspect ratio of the viewing area.

Heh, a hundred postings, a hundred different opinions.

Also ignoring that wizards can't channel positive energy for no reason, it's about a big a leap as to any other caster class. In Project Eternity, literally the only thing seperating a wizard and priest in function is how they use their souls, this is a similar case for D&D as well. Druids derive their power from nature, Clerics derive their power from deities (or their philosophy and beliefs, unless you know, you break the rules to not allow clerics to do that), Sorcerers just have innate magical power, Bards are similar to sorcerers (but they perform instead for some reason), Wizards derive their power from logic. So according to you, wizards, sorcerers, bards, druids, and whatever else I missed that doesn't have a deity are basically the same things. So yes, it is a big a leap as I think. One's source of power in D&D dictates one's magical abilities, so logic =/= belief. It makes a huge difference. Ah, another reducio ad absurdum argument. I made no statement about how magic works; merely implying that tying magic to logic is unnecessary and possibly absurd. You are wrapping yourself around the axle with your own assumptions.

You don't want a flashy interface for a game representing a late middle ages epoch. In this case the 1960s mini would be just fine for a representing the 1960s epoch. To me the tone and texture of the interface seems fine.

Sure, as long as you completely ignore the fact that wizards derive their power from logic. That's really not as big a leap as you seem to think.

When the party is in exploration mode, the designers could add an option to have the control panel auto-hide at the bottom of the screen (much like what you can do with the Windows 7 taskbar). That would free up more real estate. Once you're in combat or interacting, the panel can then scroll back into view (perhaps accompanied by a suitable sound).

Err... Americans are not rude, smug, self-entitled, annoying buttheads? Wow, who'd have thought?

This point makes a ton of sense to me. Just sayin'...

Discounting the stylistic issues, there is the problem of the screen dimensions. What you have is a wide screen with good visibility to the left and right, but the vertical visibility is not so great, and it's been reduced quite a bit further now. This is more of a problem with fixed perspective games because it forces a left-right exploration pattern in order to see a decent distance ahead. Modern CRPGs tend to have only a small presence at the bottom of the screen and put more of the player information along the sides, thereby taking full advantage of the display space. I think this is what is meant by "2013 not 1998". I suppose the issue could be partially solved by tending to orient the display so that the party is at the top or the bottom of the mid-section when they move down or up, respectively.

The issue with save or die events is that they tend to dominate the play of D&D at higher levels. For a CRPG, the net result of that is a reload and do over after applying more scrolls and potions; not really much fun overall. So no, I'm not in favor of this.

At first I was taken back a little by the UI because it takes up so much of the vertical real estate. But I can see you went that way because of the need for a message box. Style-wise the UI bar looks very nice and solid. It kind of grows on you. Giving modders a means to apply different skins would be beneficial though. I really enjoyed the concept art and the line drawing, plus the work descriptions were interesting. Good work!

Okay, but let's call them Wizards instead.

The best element of NWN2 was the toolset and the ability to make your own D&D adventures. I wasn't all that excited by the campaigns.

Red Dead Redemption? Not sure that was released on both consoles though, but definitely not on PC. Yes, that was one of those very rare titles that gave me console envy. But I got over it.

I'm wondering if they could use the same technique for the portraits that they employ on the game scenes? That is, initially render the character busts as 3D models, then convert them to 2D portraits and allow the artists to apply their skills to make the faces look appealing and non-creepy. The portraits could thereafter be modified by a variety of different backgrounds, clothing, jewelry, helms, and hats.

Unless I missed something, the Stash is always available to put things into. It's just that things can only be taken out of it at campsites/towns, etc. The Shared Pack is the area where not-immediately-equipped items reside that can be equipped and/or used and/or shuffled about/dropped/etc. without having to travel back out of a dungeon/"dangerous" region to do so. This is what has confused me regarding your post. You can travel into a dungeon with a FULL shared Pack and still escape with plenty of loot at the end of the foray. It's just that, if you find a Sword of Awesome halfway through the dungeon, the only options are "put it in the Stash where I can't access it" or "leave it lying about upon the ground." Whereas, if you had Pack space, you could actually equip the Sword of Awesome now (AND keep your current weapon). Well, actually, I suppose you could always toss your immediately-equipped weapon into the Stash, then pick up and directly equip the Sword of Awesome. *shrug* Not sure if that's true or not. Yes, sorry, I forgot about the stash always being available as a deposit box. In terms of tuning the Shared pack size though, I think it could still be made somewhat flexible. Some players will want to play pack rats that carry every possible tool they need, so they could do so if they accept the weight penalties or bulk up the party with high Strength scores. Others can choose to travel light and mobile, but less prepared for every contingency.

A brief update on Baldur's Gate 2 Enhanced edition on ShackNews. They report 350,000 words of new content and mention some potential future DLC for BGEE.