Nixl

I only started playing Arcanum recently, but this is what I found. What I loved: (1) The selection of background traits afforded to you. (2) The music was soothing. What I hated: The local map function. The world map worked perfectly, but the local overheard view was awful in my opinion. In looking over a city I felt it did a terrible job, especially when you are trying to navigate. I think a good local map function is found in Planescape Torment (PST). I know they are they vastly different games, but in PST you were given complete view of the local zone that you were in. This made navigating a city simple and clear in my opinion. Unless I am missing something, Arcanum's map is far less functional and convenient to use.

Personally, I think Morrowind handled the "chosen one" best. Essentially, every group had their own interpretation of what the Neveraine was suppose to do and accomplish. Some thought the Neveraine would champion the great houses. Some thought the Neveraine would kick out all foreigners, etc. At the end of the day, people just wanted to use you. The "chosen one" was as much a political term as anything else. Another thing Morrowind with the "chosen one" trope is that there were many Neveraines that failed.

Great topic. Personally, I am conflicted because my favorites villains are debatable. I thought the "villains" of System Shock 2, Kotor 2, and Planescape were wonderful for various reasons. In System Shock 2, Shodan and the Many brought this sense of scale/grandness that I feel most games fail at. Each felt like an unstoppable force that made you feel like an insect. The fight against Shodan is one of my favorites, not for the mechanics, but what actually was happening that entire level. To see an AI actually transcend into a godlike-being capable of overwriting the universe was amazing. Just the phrase, "Shodan shouldn't play god, she is too good at it," sends a message. To a lesser extent, I thought the Transcedent one also accomplished this sense of scale or grandness. These bosses were not just evil characters looking for more power, they were also existences that transcended anything you could ever touch. I almost want to say these villains were reminsicent of Lovecraftian horror, but I think I am getting ahead of myself. Edit: Not to mention Shodan and the Many's dialogue to you. Truly thrilling in my opinion. Shodan: "What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?" The Many: "What is a drop of rain compared to the storm? What is a thought compared to a mind? Our unity is full of wonder, which your tiny individualism cannot even conceive." In Kotor 2, I always thought that the villains were actual lessons to be learned from. Nihilus and Sion each seemed to teach a different lesson. Nihilus was the epitome of power and yet he was weaker because of that power. He became a mindless hunger. As for Sion, he could not let go and in a sense was blind to the truth. They were all potential paths that you could have taken. I had feeling that Nihilus and Sion were not all that different from you actually, they just didn't receive the same chance. (opinion of course)

I voted yes for two reasons. First, in a story centric game I would like the switch out companions and listen or use them in certain missions without penality. For instance, I may not want to use the orlan cipher for general quests, but for plots involving murders or investigation I may want to include him. I do not think bringing characters for specific tasks should be penalized. Second, one may want to experiment with the characters and different tactics. I believe elminating XP for inactives encourages players just to stick with what they know. edit: I do not think allowing inactives to gain only part of XP solves much. It still runs into the problem of players just sticking to what they have or know in my opinion. Having characters quest/adventure on their own with a possibility of death sounds interesting, but potentially arbitrary.

I like this idea. Humans do not get bonuses so to speak, but rather players get more freedom to place bonuses and/or skills.

I would love a Lovecraftian bend such as this. Old gods are used in a lot of stories, but rarely to the extent of Lovecraftian entities. Hell, I feel that "Old Gods" could be a trope in itself that Obsidian could tackle.

I voted for Godlike Chanter. I would love nothing more than to see a Celestial/Godlike blow up an enemy's head with nothimg more than a divine word or sound. Then again, perhaps a character like the mute girl in PST, but the difference being if she does talk, you die.

I do not mean to nitpick, but is this not just another trope? The"pretty exterior, rotten interior" seems like a prevalent theme in media as well the oversexualized characters. Ultimately, I half agree with you. I do not want Obsidian putting in oversexualized characters to sell the game. At the same time, however, I do not want Obsidian to place in reactionary writing or characters to combat oversexualization. That also feels artificial.

Based on the quote above, attacks provide two types of damage, HP damage and stamina damage. Stamina seems to be a pain threshold or a knockdown mechanic. On its own, I do not dislike stamina, but I would prefer if they added additional factors such as dodge chances, hit accuracy, and spell sucess. That way reckless tactics or long fights become progressively harder.

This is best interpreted (unless clarified) as heath (HP) shield. Actually, that sounds more like the fatigue system in Morrowind to be honest. There was HP and then there was fatigue. Fatigued governed the success of certain actions such as spell success or hit accuracy. If a player hit low or zero fatigue then certain attacks could knock the player down for a time. Fatigue was entirely independent of health, so even though your fatigue slowly regenerated your health did not. That is how fatigue worked in Morrowind. In this system, it sounds like the opposite. Rather than actions depleting fatigue, taking attacks depletes fatigue. To be honest, if this is the system, I do not see how it is dumbed down or ultra casual. If anything it reinforced the weakeness of mages in close combat, because unlike a warriors/fighters they would not have the fatigue/stamina to withstand many blows. I actually think a fatigue system brings its own dynamic to the balance of character classes. This assumes, however, that the stamina system is a mirror to the fatigue system.

How ironic that you use playstyles as an argument against, when objective based xp allows for the most flexibility in that regard. Leave "dealing with the bandits" as objective. Deal with them how you please (kill/intimidate/enslave/charm/etc). Receive xp. Perhaps there is some confusion, I am not using playstyles in the context of mage/rogue/kill/intimidate/charm, etc. Instead, I am refering to taking quests vs. "exploration" or not taking quests. When I say, "killing bandits," I do not mean a quest or an objective, but rather just exploration and finding battles along the way. Take Fallout or Arcanum, one could find random encounters or even dungeons that were irrelevant to the main plot or dettached from a quest. Those encounters were rewarded even if it did not have an objective or quest attached. That is what I am getting at. If a player enjoyed finding Enclave soldiers encounters on max difficulty rather than quests/objectives, why not give them some xp? For a quest or story centric RPG that may be absurd, but I still think it should be up to the playe to decide. Part of it is I just do not see a strong point for absolutely no XP from kills. I am fine with having the majority of XP deriving from objectives, but why not also have a little xp for kills? It seems like a removal that changes little except removing one possibility of choice for leveling. It may be a small and lagely ignored choice, but it is still a choice. edit: Clarity, grammar, spelling, etc

I hope you realize that what's going to happen here is that you'll get your kill xp, but it will be ridiculously, meaninglessly low - just to provide Obsidian with a fig leaf to cover over the design philosophy they REALLY want to accomplish. Luckily, the OCD crowd doesn't care how little xp they get. They just want to see those numbers pop up. I believe this will happen as well. I do, however, believe that kills for XP should remain a legitamate leveling path. Therefore, I do not believe the XP gains from kills should be too small. I know the soul of this game is in the story, but I think one could also make the argument that player choice is also an essential ingredient. If someone wants to just explore or roleplay a character that kills bandits, why not reward that style? Such a style should not be the optimal path, but it should still count as a path.

Perhaps I am wrong, but the stamina system described sounds like the fatigue system used in Morrowind. A low stamina/fatigue score reduced accuracy, spell success chances, and dodge. While I understand Morrowind is not an IE game, I thought the fatigue system was good. The system kept characters in check and restricted a FPS style run, jump, click, and shoot style gameplay. Furthermore, it provided an extra resource to be mindful of when exploring and fighting. Or, is the stamina bar just a regenerative shield?

Against, I am against this system for two reasons. First, as much as I understand the dev's reasoning, I still think leveling/XP decisions is a player decision. If a player wants to level solely through exploration encounters or hunting bandits or dragons, I think the choice should remain open. Second, from what I understand of "degenerative" gameplay, the issue derives from an imbalance of XP sources and not solely on "XP from kills." The middle ground is perhaps hazy, but I do think it is possible. So long as the optimal leveling path is not grinding level 1 boars, I think XP for kills is okay. I do not mean to be rude, but unless my sarcasm meter is broken, this post seem overly dramatic. How does one derive objective based XP and regenerating stamina as action RPG elements? Last time I checked, action RPGs award XP for kills and objectives. I simply do not understand this argument at all. I can perhaps understand issue with regenerating stamina, but Planescape Torment essentially had regenerating health, which became progressively stronger with constitution. Yet, PST was not an action RPG. Also, calling P:E, "Call of Eternity," just seems like exaggeration for the sake of exxageration.

He doesn't have one. Like literary none. He would have one if these games were commerical failures (which they aren't) or George was responsible for the content which is considered *bad* in those games (he isn't) It may be a weak argument, but I would not call it an absence of an argument. Although, I do disagree with it. edit: I do not want to push further into the debate, since we should all be happy to have Ziets regardless. Hopefully I can find a copy of the game eventually. Not sure why steam pulled it.

Don't confuse my passion for the success of this project for trolling. I want the best for P:E. I want Planescape Torment. I want Icewind Dale. I want Baldurs Gate. NWN2 was not successful. It barely even launched, never mind on time. To say that it was a hit because it had expansions is a fallacy. I can name any number of movies and games that got undeserved sequels or expansions despite having a lackluster reception. Again, not successful: LOTRO. You know what MMORPG's do when they start failing miserably? They go free to play where they slowly become forgotten and irrelevant. Do you want me to entertain you with some examples? Speaking of not launching, anyone who does a moderate amount of digging can find why Ziets left Obsidian. We might as well have Michael Bay direct the movie and Nickleback do the score if Ziets is joining the team. They're successful right? They must be great! I realize that I am jumping into this conversation without all the context or having read all the cross-posts. That being said, while I understand your argument, I do feel that commercial success and writing that has created a strong following are separate. For example, Planescape Torment had bugs and weak combat, but the writing is alone created a following/fans even if the sales were weak. In fact, I am pretty sure this kickstarter was helped by the fact that the developers mentioned their ties to Planescape and other beloved RPGs and not strong sales figures. I have never played Neverwinter Nights 2 or the MOB and finding a copy is near impossible at the moment. Therefore, I cannot say whether Ziets warrants the attention or no from a personal persepctive.

So very very close The donations have been very fast the last day or so. I hope it keeps up. 3 million will be possible at this rate.

I voted for necromancer, but allowing for subspecializations certainly strikes a compromise.

-New Class: Paladin Compromise --- Paladin AND Undead-summoning anti-paladin variant. I aprove of this compromise.

This is true, the balance of a summoned creature is problematic,but I still like the archetype for some reason.

I would love a necromancer or summoner class. Although, these classes could be wrapped into a specialization of the mage/sorceror.

While I partially understand what Metiman is saying, I do think there are some broad over generalizations made in the post. I would argue people rarely fall into such over simplified categories, especially those on this board. Also I hope I do not sound rude Metiman, but you talk about pandering to "Biowarians", but at the same time aren't you advocating that Obsidian just pander to another group? Is it not strange to label one side of pandering better over another when it is all just about pandering in this thread? That being said, I do hate Bioware romances. edit: Question, if someone does not like either a pure memorization system or cooldown system, what category are they automatically placed in?

I like the concept sir. While I understand some posters will disagree, I do believe unlimited weak spells can bring tactical diversity. The tactical diversity in my opinion would derive from choosing between strong but limited spells and weak unlimited spells. Simply put, I associate diversity with options. By options, I mean planning constant sequences of actions between characters. With a party of potentially 6, I believe optimal spell/ability management in a long fight could be rewarding. One might argue that unlimited basic spells would allow for spamming and reduce the need for preparation, but I would disagree. Ideally, using only basic spells should not work. Instead, basic spells may fill the gap between cooldowns. I would imagine maximizing spell output and efficieny against a tough enemy can create a demanding fight. Players that let mage characters sit idle in between cooldowns could be punished in such a system. Furthermore, I would argue that preparation mechanics, especially rest mechanics, are often abused (rest spamming) or not always tactical (just frontloading spells). Ultimately, I do not believe there is a clear cut method to creating tactics and preparation. In the end, I think systems that mix cooldowns, fatigue/morale, etc will create the best platform for strategy.

I posted this in the cooldown thread, but personally I think a hybrid system would have advantages. By hybrid system, I mean a mix of cooldowns and memorization. Give weak spells cooldowns and medium and/or strong spells memorization requirements. I believe cooldown vs memorization spells would bring an interesting balance point to the combat. A cooldown spell may have infinite uses, but it is much weaker than a memorization spell and vice versa. Furthermore, I think both cooldown and memorization systems have pros and cons. I do believe a hybrid system could potentially bring together the pros and eliminate the cons if done well. Then again, anything done well is going to work lol.

While I understand complaints over a cooldown system, I do think it is too early to make a judgement of whether it is fitting of the system just yet. Personally, I believe a hybrid approach to cooldowns and resting/memorization systems would have favorable benefits. Let weak spells/abilities have cooldowns, thus allowing weaker spells to still have a purpose or place in the endgame. Meanwhile, strong spells could require memorization and/or rest. I think it strikes a balance of combat flow and tactics.