What I am sick of are lost civilizations that were extremely advanced and prolific. If they were really advanced then why is the current setting basicly the recovery from an apocalypse. Lord of the Rings was that and it annoyed me when books would harp on and on about the glories of the past.

 

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

The CRPGs I've played are probably ones no one's ever heard of, but I enjoyed Heretic Kingdoms: The Inquisition and Beyond Divinity.

 

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.

2) The one thing that Tim discussed about wanting to control the entire party's actions and such seems to support the concept of creating a mode where you can make more than one party member in your party ala Icewind Dale. Another request is to please allow this, even if you could only make up to 4/6 party members yourself. It would give you that control you want to feel while still allowing for story. Heck even if you could only make 3/6 characters yourself that would be awesome.

 

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 materials aren't expensive, as I wrote in the other thread about this, I've bought albums from bands that have been put together really well, and none of them have been in as good position as Obsidian. The only reason Obsidian shouldn't sell a boxed version on this website is that there is little demand. They could even think about selling a collectors edition and charge more than the Kickstarter one.

 

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.

Of course any 'game' is a balance between realism and playability and too much realism can mire a game. However, RPGs are essentially stories and if I read, in a fantasy novel, that the hero has hit the villain for "2 hitpoints of damage" my immersion in that story is going to be pretty much gone. So why should I be happy with that in the context of a PC game?

 

To my mind the best combat system I have come across has been in Temple of Elemental Evil but, good as it was, there was no true damage system. Basically every character, NPC and monster fought equally well, with all or almost none of its' hit points, until, at zero points it became unconscious and, I think, at minus 10 HP it died. There was no variation to this, so after a while combat could become rather mechanical. Fortunately it was spiced up with other elements which went someway to keeping things interesting; for instance, taking potions in combat could provoke opporunity attacks from nearby enemies.

 

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?

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.

 

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 the idea of 'science fantasy' a la Moorc0ck etc (hawkwind for example; it had mechanical flying machines in the shape of beasts and 'flamelances' but also swords, axes and armour). Howabout some races having a different relationship with their souls than others? Make the high medieval renaissance setting fuelled by magic, make the reformation of the world linked to the perception of souls and their worth. Make magical science distinct and unusual.there is nothing wrong with high fantasy settings, but some of us like a burst of chilli with our vanilla if you get my drift.

 

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.

depends on the exploration system in use. right now it sounds that they're going with a more traditional one with clickable hotspots on a world map where mounts wouldn't fit in. besides that integrating mounts into the whole fighting system would take too much time and ressources, therefore it's better to drop the idea.

 

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.

NO!

I could kill them from orbit with Exterminatus if i had the chance. Be purged by righteous fire.

 

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.

No.

 

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.)

I was just pointing out that there are already threads with tons of info and discussion on this topic, just in case you didn't know. It is absolutely fine if you want to start a new thread though.

 

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.

it doesnt fit the setting and design. i could accept however the ability to rent or buy horses, who's use will be implied for traveling. so going from point A to B will take 20h on foot or 10h on horse if you pay for it. one more thing would be to use horses like the mules in the dungeon siege games, but in a more static manner. so you go to X spot where there is a dungeon, using the horses you have bought. the horses stay out of the dungeon and can be used as storage for the loot you find and dont want to use or carry on you. and then you ride them back to the city once you are done. there are no mounted sequences or anything, you just have a few static models in a corner and cut travel time in half.

 

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.

No, already fully discussed here: http://forums.obsidi...nion-on-mounts/

 

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.

Wasteland 2 is using Unity and mod tools were one of the stretch goals (last one reached, IIRC). So it should be possible

 

The predicament then is--present a stretch goal within the next couple weeks and thus introduce the expectation for mod tools, or stick with the original plan of waiting for another year or so to see where development goes with the risk of somehow not having enough resources for the player tools (additional licensing? I dunno).

 

I understand Obsidian has thought about this a little but is placing it on the back burner to give priority to the main vanilla game, which is all well and good--I think the vast majority of players appreciate a clear, high-quality goal... But given that players know the engine being used and its capabilities for player tools, I wonder if Obsidian needs to seriously consider moving the priority forward for future planning purposes.

 

I'm not sure it would be a good idea for Obsidian to promise a Mod tool as a stretch goal, given that they are not certain how much they can commit to it. Another consideration is that the stretch goals are what draw in the additional contributions; how many of those would want modding tools? There are plenty of other things they can add with the money that would add value to the game and interest uncommitted investors. Maybe add a skilled voice narrator, include compute-intensive cut-scene graphics, allow characters to purchase and use horses (mounted cavalry charge?), wagons and a ship, build more spell sets, publishing a campaign setting for table-top gamers, &c.