Mrakvampire

Oh, you are absolutely not alone here. If I've seen this statement from this person (Josh Sawyer) that he basically dislikes most successfull and praised IE game (Baldur's Gate 2) - then there would be absolutely NO MONEY, $0 from me, and all my friends that were actually shocked, when I've shown them this comment. I hate being manipulated and I feel right now that Obsidian just used my nostalgia feelings and tricked me. Their is a difference between liking (loving) something and blindly thinking its the holy grail. I really love the baldurs gate games but I could make a very long list about things that I think are not very well made or just plain bad. Romances for example are one of those points. No, no, no. He basically said, quote:

Oh, you are absolutely not alone here. If I've seen this statement from this person (Josh Sawyer) that he basically dislikes most successfull and praised IE game (Baldur's Gate 2) - then there would be absolutely NO MONEY, $0 from me, and all my friends that were actually shocked, when I've shown them this comment. I hate being manipulated and I feel right now that Obsidian just used my nostalgia feelings and tricked me.

I don't feel any similarity to old IE games right now beyond usage of 2D graphics. Combat feels (and is, actually) different, there will be no companion romance (and you call it deep companion interaction?), inventory system is console-like, rpg system basically states that most powerfull wizards in game should look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc.

They didn't promise anything like romance. Wasn't BG2 the only IE game with romance? Romance certainly isn't needed ingredient to making an IE successor considering only one of five even had them. Of all IE games that actually had NPC companions (Icewind Dale 1 or 2 had no companions at all, you created whole party) only 1 game doesn't have a romance - Baldur's Gate 1. And it's only because that this game was first among IE games and hadn't featured deep companion interactions at all.

Doesn't sound to me like they're failing to live up to any promises. They promised to deliver on what made those games fun, not on exact copies of them or their mechanics. If they had promised to make Baldur's Gate 3 I never would have pledged. Ok, let us make a simple check. 1. Will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate No romance confirmed. Exploration with no XP for battles. And developers already stated that "there are too many quests in BG". LOLWUT? 2. Intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale Combat right now has nothing in common with Icewind Dale combat, that was 99% similar to BG2 combat. 3. Bla-bla-bla Planescape: Torment We can't check it right now.

Exactly. That's why I suggest to cut active non-caster abilities or transform them into passives.

Sorry to say that, but this is nonsense. Most really difficult fights in the game (BG2) are nearly unbeatable by casters only due to very high Magic Resistance that Big Bad Guys have. Well, I soloed both BG1, BG2 and ToB with a Sorcerer so I would not say that. I would not have a chance to finish it with a Fighter. I said nearly unbeatable, not 100% unbeatable.

Oh, you know a lot of RPG games with party-based real-time + pause combat beyond IE games?

http://youmustgatheryourpartybeforeventuringforth.com/

There are so many damage-dealing spells without area of effect...

Still in BG2 there was no need to micromanage all party with redundant abilities. Just send your Minsc in the direction of enemy and focus on micromanagement of 1-2 casters in your team. Now... You have to babysit all of them!

Most effiecient wizard ever. Conan.

Look. We are talking about RPG game that involves playing not 1 character but whole party of characters. So, some of them could be 'boring' from mechanics standpoint, yes. But overall, as you manage party, you will have whole bunch of abilities.

Moreover, with high Might you've got nice muscles!

You got it right there: magic resistance. For them to be difficult, they need to be resistant to magic. If wizards weren't specifically nerfed against them, there would be no difficulty. Listen, I'm really surprised to find someone trying to say that fighters are just as powerful as wizards in AD&D. Usually people make the argument about wizards only being able to kill so many people per day, so they keep fighters around so the mooks don't tire them out, but trying to straight up say the system gives them equivalent power levels is new. This has been a settled issue for a long time. STOP RIGHT THERE CRIM... I mean... Stop. We are discussing not AD&D here. We are discussing Baldur's Gate 2 game (why it was so awesome, and why PoE should be more like BG2) here. These are 2 different things. At all.

Now compare it to D&D 3 edition definition of Charisma.

Sorry to say that, but this is nonsense. Most really difficult fights in the game (BG2) are nearly unbeatable by casters only due to very high Magic Resistance that Big Bad Guys have.

Resolve has part of charisma description. Something about influencing people. Yeah and you go way to far in protecting obvious RP flaws of this new system.

How interesting. And those people asked my money to create IE games successor? Oh crap, I'm really dumb hamster, really. Shame on me for not reading dev posts about my favorite games.

You are talking about meta-gaming, but whole idea of Might stat for example is meta-game-based. Cause again, I can ingame descripe physically weak but powerfull wizard in old classic RPG system, but can't in this new one. Taking meta out of the equation and just looking at the RPing side then, sure you can. Explicitly because Might does not use the word strength, Might can mean what you want. The might of his soul can translate into several things. Spellpower might, because his soul is 'mightier' than others. He can physically(soul-ly?) do more because of that. I don't understand you, sorry. I want to have physically weak old, very old wizard that can blast mountains with his spells. Or I want to have weak willed charismatic bard. Try to stat them in this new system.

You are talking about meta-gaming, but whole idea of Might stat for example is meta-game-based. Cause again, I can ingame descripe physically weak but powerfull wizard in old classic RPG system, but can't in this new one.

I'm not requesting whole redesign of class system. Is it a big deal to move one bonus from one stat to another? No. Is a big deal to move several bonuses from one stat to another? Not a big deal, and it doesn't require any kind of super costly effort. Moreover they have more than half year till release (and even more, as I'm sure that game will not be released in 2014 as they say). All that I require doesn't involve engine or graphics change (most time consuming parts of development) - nothing at all. Moreover, I don't ask to change plot, or lore of the game that would require tons of changes in game texts. So I'm curious if my suggestions are too complicated - then why at all we have this beta? Only to find bugs? Ok, then do it without me. If no major changes will happen, than I'm sorry to say that - I will consider myself cheated by Obsidian on the promise to deliver me a successor of Infinity Engine games, cause there is nothing that is common with them right now except usage of 2D graphics. Combat is micromanagement hell (nothing in comparison with BG1/2 combat), inventory is console-like, rpg system is not intuitive and even doesn't resemble classic old-school CRPG systems... And as a cheated person hamster I would feel bad. I don't want to feel bad, and I don't want to feel cheated.

Very interesting revelations from development team. It pitty that those revelations were not made during Kickstarter campaing. Oh, stop, this would greatly reduce amount of money they would get from us. Bingo!

Actually, the change of term did change everything. Might is an entirely separate concept from strength, in that it also refers to your force of soul/magic/whatever. Might affecting all damage makes sense in context. You want a nuke wizard? It's essential to have enough strength of soul to pull it off. I like it. There were so many dump stats I didn't care about, playing a mage in the IE games. This system goes a long way to eliminating that (though it's not perfect yet - perception/resolve). It makes no sense. I can imagine character with high Strength - it's human with a lot of muscle, like Conan. I can't imagine this purely metagaming stat that you are referring to.

Ok. Here is my constructive criticism: 1. Return classic intuitive stats (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma). Don't want to have dump stats? Just make sure that there is logical explanation why should Wizard take high Strength. Maybe there could be builds of melee wizard? Or maybe Strength could contribute to defenses vs. some kind of physical attacks (like knockouts). No need to actually use D&D system, just use classic stats that are self-explanatory. 2. Return classic IE inventory and add more filters/etc to it. Bring back item weight and encumbance. No more console-like infinite stashes! If you want more space - buy magic bags. 3. Remove at least 50% of abilities from non-casters and make others mostly in format of 'enabled / disabled'. This will greatly reduce amount of micromanagement that is required in combat.