makryu

Honestly, I see no problem integrating the mega dungeon and the second city. The mega dungeon has to be optional, the developers don't want to force players who have no special love for this kind of thing to play through it. I agree that I'd like to see as much integration to the "main world" as possible, with quests, factions, loot and creatures that are mentioned elsewhere in the world. But especially I'd like to see the mega dungeon as a place in which the developers let loose their more experimental side, with unorthodox content that they're unsure would please the average player. This could include (but not be limited to) an emphasis in hard content, stuff that pushes players both tactically (in combat) and mentally (with puzzles and such). The second city could work either way as a late game content (remember New Reno?) or as an additional city available from the start. Nonlinearity is not a problem at any stage of the game, IMO. The only thing I'd like the developers to be careful with is to avoid making the action (plot-related, mostly) too focused on the big cities. I think the smaller villages and rural areas should be given a place to shine too.

I think the use of tunics, robes, etc over armor would be great.

I didn't really meant anything like that, I wouldn't want to level armor either (unless it was intelligent armor ).

I think a factor behind making different types of armor available, plausible and desirable at any point of the game is to add unique mechanics. In D&D, armor does not have many stats, so making different but equivalent ones was difficult. As has been stated by many, exploring damage reduction, armor class, dexterity and strength restrictions, different protections for different types of damage, fatigue modifiers, buy and repair costs, different materials, npc reaction to clothing, etc should provide for more than enough variety if done correctly. Maybe add "armor experience" or something like it, making familiarity with the armor play a factor during play. One last thing I'm not sure someone may have posted is that maybe armor could have some distinct feature linked to souls, which is the main theme, after all. Maybe different materials or armor with different symbols or made during certain rituals/regions/occasions tie in with the user's soul and provide other less tangible/ non-physical effects. Maybe an "armored soul" is not something purely mental.

I think there are alternatives to go either way with the XP system: - make a distinction between quest-related kills and the general mayhem you provoke by finding the random assortment of monsters during exploration; - double xp by killing after accomplishing an objective in a non-violent way is avoidable by "flagging" quest-related monsters as worth 0xp after the award for a nonviolent solution has been given; - for nonviolent multiple solution quests, the first way you accomplish it removes the xp gain you'd have by doing it the other ways. - establish a "unique monster" system in which only those are actually worth a xp reward; - give out xp for exploration goals, such as reach a certain landmark, find secret routes, etc.; I honestly think this one would be good only if the game has large optional areas and/or exploration is made more challenging by including environmental obstacles (don't know if that could be effectively added to an IE-like game); - I think these are ideas to consider. In my opinion, and please don't burn me in a fire because of this, I think the developers would do well to take a look at how Xenoblade Chronicles did it, as in that game landmarks and secret areas awarded you with level-based xp awards, and the unique monster system there actively provided incentive to pursue these monster fights, which were much more valuable, both in terms of xp and loot, than fighting common enemies (they didn't fully realized it, though, as in late game you were still forced to grind quite a bit). I'd be more inclined towards a system that doesn't penalize you for going completely nonviolent, and any kill xp system would prevent that. But I also think that you should get very tangible rewards from randomly exploring, even when no quests demand you to do so.

I don't see why flanking and spell combos can't have an effect at real time. In fact I think it's already been done a few times. It's not like all enemies will keep hopping to get out of tough positions instead of attacking or executing other actions.

I disagree with many of the people dismissing DA:O's story so readily. Was it clichéd? Yes, but not anymore than any other CRPG game out there excluding PS:T. I also think that people throw out terms like "fan fiction dialogue" way too liberally when referring to the game. Alistair, Morrigan and others had very interesting stories, which felt like a nice fit into the scenario and had a decent amount of personality. The blandness of the Warden has a lot more to do with the fact that the nameless generic protagonist demands that sort of "personality neutrality", and is a problem common to most if not all games which didn't direct their protagonists towards a certain direction(like PS:T). BUT it had a way too underrated feature which isn't mentioned nearly enough: DA:O inserts you in the midst of the most genuine medieval nobility intrigue I've ever seen in a CRPG. The characters motives and actions as well as the choices you had to make all were neatly tied to the political landscape of Ferelden, and it felt a lot more real because of that (my wife played a mage whom, in the end, was unable to marry Alistair, and for him to be king had to settle for a role as mistress, even though she was the Hero of Ferelden. Honestly, rarely does a game makes you play through that sort of thing). Also, the origins, as little effect as they had in the end, were actually a first implementation of a very nice feature. In the end, I think P:E would only be enriched if it could improve upon these features/traits. DA:O has a lot more merits than most purists admit, imo.

I really like what I read, especially the magic system: I don't think they should listen too much to the people who are seemingly worried with spell span at lower levels. One of the worst aspects of being a mage in PnP D&D has traditionally always been having to endure the first few levels, where your mage doesn't have much firepower. They shouldn't restrain themselves in developing the game around a restriction that old D&D players are used to just "because". Also, I don't know about you guys, but in IE games, my mages usually ended up with more than enough low levels spells a few levels in and it didn't turn my plays into a spamming fest.

On the plus side, milestones have been met. You can still buy the game after it's released. What's telling, though, is that any perceived "consensus" over what made the IE games is probably in the imaginations of most gamers. Fact is, a game like Baldur's Gate appeals to a wide variety of people that all have different things they prefer from it. Even the IE games themselves differ quite a bit, where I infinitely (heh) prefer Torment over the others, but I still really like the BG games. The IWD games were fun, but utlimately not as interesting as their focus was mostly on combat. Torment had crap combat, but is probably the best RPG of all time IMO. So what exactly makes these games what they were and what is it that all people love about them? Things like Vancian magic annoyed the piss out of me, but I tolerated it once I understood the idea behind it. It didn't take away from all the other things I love. So true. It seems some people, especially a particular brand of old-schoolers (which I know, being an old-schooler myself, don't represent old-schoolers in general), feel like they are the only ones that get it, or understand what IE games were made of. The truth is that many of us that were there in the beginning, when the IE games first came out, don't feel outraged because PE won't be a carbon copy of the IE games.

This is the prime example of the exaggerated negativity this topic is about. Dragon Age has faults, but to say a game is or will be worse than it is to say nothing, other than trying to imply it is a pile of s***, which it clearly isn't. Lack of rounds, cool-downs and level-scaling do not negate tactical depth and exploration. I agree that stupid level-scaling does that, but I don't see how Obsidian might incur into this mistake. I just see no factual base for it. If Bethesda was making the game, then I'd be worried. Another example of pointless criticism. I did not miss it. I was at the forums calling the upcoming Fallout 3 just that, arguing with gullible people who thought they'd put out a true Fallout game. I did not belittle his opinion. We had a very civil discussion for which he even complimented me. What I do belittle is the thought that somehow any crpgs that are not turn-based have inherently less value or are "less tactical" than a turn-based crpg. I think it is simply a baseless assumption, ignoring the fact that turn-based itself was created as a necessity for the tabletop template, nothing more, nothing less. "those of us of a critical mind"? Did you even read this? So, if people do not share your concern on the subject they don't have "a critical mind"? That's exactly what I meant by shortsighted. You know the great thing about romance in cRPGs? You're not forced to engage on it if you find it disgusting shallow or whatever. Then you mixed up some buzzwords like progressive and liberal and continue to alienate more people from the "true crpg fanbase" (so only conservatives can be true crpgs fans with a "critical mind"?), which grows thinner and thinner. NOWHERE in my post did I try to impose my "totalitarian views" on anyone. I was pointing out the fact that people like you should be more open and accepting of at least some deviation from your dream crpg formula. IT HAS become a genre rejected by most big publishers. That much is a fact. Have you missed the reduced number of titles we've been getting during the last decade? Yes, it is a fact. Go read the interviews, they mention this fact more than once, I'm quite sure. Guess our beloved genre- oh sorry, my beloved genre is in worse shape than you thought. Good for you that your beloved genre has never been better. All in all, your replies are pretty much a textbook example of what is wrong with crpg fans. Did you also react badly back in the 90s when dungeon crawlers started using automaps? Or did you give them a free pass over that one? And for the record, I've played A LOT of classics and I've been a dungeon master since 1993, so I guess I'm not some clueless guy who thinks the genre appeared yesterday. I'm just more accepting of differences and easier to please, I think.

Damn, people are whiny. I once discussed at length at the F3 boards with some guy that believed tb combat was inherently superior to rtwp combat. Note that he was posting in a board of "Oblivion with guns". He and I wanted the same thing: a real crpg experience, something increasingly rare. What he failed to realize, and I think most purists here also do, is that there are differences between genre evolution and genre dissolution. romance, rtwp, cooldowns, partial level scaling, they're not design choices that desecrate the crpg genre. The heated totalitarian arguments against them show just how petty and shortsighted the crpg community really is. Don't even get me started on the presumed intelligence of crpg players: honestly, it's pathetic to put yourself above other players as if playing and infinity engine game was rocket science. Newsflash: crpg players can be as stupid as anyone, and many posts here are a testament to that. In the end, while we're arguing against Dragon Age, we ignore what Dragon Age II has turned into. Hell, if we had a steady diet of Dragon Age-like crpgs coming out every year, who honestly wouldn't be at least satisfied? What people do not seem to realize is that the genre is dying, and the fact that Obsidian had to use Kickstarter to make this game possible says a lot about it. While we aggressively argue over the details, and be bitchy about every minor thing that is changed farther from our dream game, we ignore the fact that someday we may have only COD to play.

I don't know how much of their resources would have to go towards a modding tool, but I think it would be great to have one if possible. NWN only survived as more of a footnote in game's history because of its tools. There are a lot of talented people who can put out fantastic mods out there. I would also support if, like others mentioned, if they simply made the game easily open to modification and added extensive documentation and an UI application to simply streamline the programming, if that's cheaper.

Wow. I should have guessed that there would a great backlash. I'm actually surprised to see the number of people that took the effort to bash the idea, despite it being nothing more than a proposed trade (take away some items to make space for the printed book) to add more options for backers (and maybe even add some more people to back the project in the proccess. I mean, the mere existance of a new tier or something would not prevent any of you from donating the $250 if you wanted .I think it's more than a bit unfair to condemn a call for options. Also, I can't see how being interested in donating for a kickstarter project, no matter how much, and proposing a change in rewards could qualify you for being "cheap". "Selfish"? Really? A person who's backing a kickstarter is "selfish"? Nevertheless, I can see around half the voters actually liked the idea, so I think my goal was achieved.

Hey guys. I'm quite excited with this new project. This could be a turning point on the growing trend of ignoring the CRPG genre. The industry as a whole might change. That said, I'll be sure to back the project. I haven't done it yet because, ever since I read the rewards, my heart is with the printed edition of the collector's book. By the description provided, the contents will be great, and I promptly imagined it in my bookshelf side by side with my AD&D and 3.5 D&D books. I kind of pictured it like a scenario rulebook, maybe even a possible source for ideas to use in pen & paper games. I may be wrong (and please correct me if that's the case), but that's the sort of thing I imagined the book could be. So why don't I pledge for the $250 tier? Well, the thing is that it's simply too much for me at this time. I'm planning on a pledge around the $100 mark (the $140 tier especially looks sweet) and I know that's my limit. The thing is, as much as I love patches, a cloth map and a ourobouros t-shirt, I'd happily trade some of those for a printed collector's book if given the chance. I don't have a clue about cost equivalencies, but I'd like to suggest that, within reason, you guys come up with a cheaper tier that includes the printed book, an option for the old-schoolers like me who still enjoy a nice shelf full of RPG books. I'm including a poll to gauge the interest in this option. Needless to say, I'll back the project anyway even if no changes are made and the printed book stays out of reach. But I think it goes with the spirit of the project (a comeback of CRPGs of old) and of kickstarter (listen to the community) to do so. Good luck with the project. I'll be sure to voice my opinion in this forum in the coming months.