rjshae

Perhaps it's become a stagnant culture because everybody who matters is wrapped up in the broken souls issue? Or maybe there's a book-hating deity who deep fries anybody that even thinks about making a printing press? Perhaps the two are interlinked somehow?

Err... ancient Rome, Greece, and China? Put those in the context of the medieval Europe and that's what you'll have.

I've played Divine Divinity and even Divinity: Ego Draconis. The first was a good game with some interesting ideas, the second... well, it was disappointing to say the least. Yep, Divine Divinity was a blast to play, and to replay. I played through Heretic Kingdoms as well; it had some good ideas and a nice look, but was far too linear. Of all the party-based RPGs, I've pretty much enjoyed the D&D releases the most. Give me v3.5 rules with BG-series writing and I'd be a happy player.

Specialized roles create more interesting tactics. It's like the infantry-armor-artillery trifecta in modern combat. I like having distinctly different specializations and hope they don't wash it down too much.

The drawback of build-your-own party is that you can't build sophisticated interactions based upon character background. That's one of the elements I really missed in the IWD releases. OTOH, it might be a nice option to start the game with a sidekick that you've known since early childhood, and for which you have some customization choices. (Like a limited selection of classes that complement your own.) The game could always kill off the sidekick later if he is getting in the way of the story.

The $65 contribution level states that it will include a "boxed version of the game". Therefore they will likely have to produce a boxed version. If they don't, then controversy will ensue... ...but they could just mean a disk in a cardboard folder, which is very cheap to mass produce.

The most enjoyable damage system I've come across was in Drakensang. Unfortunately that probably wasn't as widely played as it should have been. But I think it gave a nice balance between debilitating damage and hit point damage.

Vancian casting is just a form of conditional cooldowns. I like to see a more sophisticated cooldown system: short-term cooldowns of individual spells and long-term cooldown of the mana pool. (Yes I know that's been done before. ) I'd sure like to see spellbooks have some role in a game. Maybe weaker spell casting with much longer casting times and lower mana cost?

This brings up a really awesome question. Can linear gameplay be fun? In any story there will be plot points that play out a certain way. So for the gameplay element here we are looking at a bigger mechanic where there can be some really polar opposite feelings. Basicly Story Vs. Sandbox. I think this is one of the reasons why I love the whole RPG game world. There are so many different ways to approach it. My experience has been that highly linear games need a lot of good ideas and novelty to be interesting. Ditto for conversations. On the other hand, sandbox games can grow tiresome after a while because the challenges and opponents tend to be clones of each other. I'm sure it's hard work for the developers to find a good balance and stay within budget.

I like your idea of the perception, and perhaps the "substance", of souls varying by race. After all, in a pantheon the destination of your soul can vary depending on whom you worship. That's bound to have some impact on the cluture of a race. I could see dwarven souls being stolid and tightly linked to the clan, making family honor highly important. Elven souls may be linked to nature, so, for example, they become tortured by the destruction of their forests. A race-soul linkage could be a significant driver of cultural behaviors. It may also drive funeral practices and make protection of burial sites highly important.

Makes sense. They would need much more expansive maps than those used in BG/IWD for horses to be useful. But I'd still like to see it being used well by enemy combatants because of the extra challenges it would create. There's nothing like being run down by a mounted knight to make you feel not quite so all-powerful.

Mmm, it will be most amusing for the party's task to be made most miserable by mounted archers that they can't run down on foot. Here's hoping it will happen... Me thinks certain gamers have not learned proper respect for mounted cavalry because of modern history.

Yes, I'm all for a sophisticated combat system that gives situational value to each class of weapon, armor and shield. As long as it isn't cumbersome and doesn't drag down the game in details.

I'm curious, is this opinion based upon your experience with mounts in other games? E.g. mounts in Oblivion, which were difficult to control and fight from. To me they seemed a positive feature in an isometric viewpoint such as the early Warcraft RTS.

To feel independent, these would need to be time-based events rather than events being keyed upon the character's progress. This could be used to key certain interactions and side quests, which would add replay value but make for a longer development cycle. (I.e. side quest X is only available during this time slot, which the player may or may not have access to depending on their progress through the game.)

This thread? http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60726-things-youd-like-to-see-in-pe-that-havent-been-done-before-in-a-crpg/

Well personally I like the idea of mounts in a RPG. But if they aren't available for party members, it still represents a big hole in a FRPG for mounts not to be available for NPCs and enemies. For example, giving bandits light mounts would make them a lot tougher to tackle since they can just ride away when the party proves a tough egg to crack.

A setup like the celtic Seelie vs. Unseelie courts would be good; possibly with the Seelie representing order and the Unseelie chaos. Hence, the Unseelie would have strange, evil powers and be allied with wierd mutant creatures like giant spiders with a stinger tail, &c.

Understood. Well hopefully they'll at least allow the opponents (and NPCs) to use mounts.

Ugh, time limits for the entire game severely hinder the experience. I don't mind them for a particular quest, but an overarching time limit basically rules out every significant activity except the main plot line. It's more enjoyable to allow your character time to grow and expand, then (perhaps) start to impose a growing sense of urgency toward the end game.

It would make for a very linear story if you're not the leader. You'd have to have a significant influence on the decisions made, or else it just boils down to a combat simulator.

Thanks for the link. Clearly they would need to be made useful in combat for mounts to have value, but the fact that mounted knights were the dominant military arm in Europe during the medieval era speaks for their importance.

Rideable mounts could make an interesting tactical addition to a click-and-move style isometric game. They weren't included in the BG or IWD series, so they would represent a step up in terms of novelty and capability. But the use of mounts would need to be fully integrated into the interface, such as with the character portraits stacked on top of their mount images and hot keys for performing mount actions like mount and dismount. What do you think? Should the party be able to mount up and rampage around the map on coursers? Should knight characters charge through an orcish patrol with his lance? How about facing bandits using hit and run tactics like mongolian horde mounted archers? Moving cross country would be much more rapid with a mount, and the party could use a horse-drawn cart to haul their loot.

A horse, of course. There were horses in Oblivion, but they were awkward to control. Having horses in a click and move game would be a nice addition and add a lot of tactical variety to the combat.

HORSES! Coursers, destriers, palfreys, quarterhorses, ponies; the whole works. I'd love to see the party be able to mount up and go riding across the map, charging down enemies with lances, or escaping at a gallop. Plus the foes will have horses, of course, and the party would need to deal with that. I'd be a significant step up from the BG/IWD game where you could only move around on foot. Having horses fully integrated into the game would be a big step closer to the tabletop experience and add a lot to the movement capabilities of the party. Wagons too, I think.