Jojobobo

I like the bell curve going from fully happy ending to depressing ending - it's very statistical. Honestly multiple endings are a bit of a deal breaker for me (well not exactly as they already have my money), they are an rpg standard and by no account should be excluded. An open ending for me would also suck, I think for some quests having an open ending where you're not sure precisely what went down is fine but for the main quest I want a degree of resolution - this isn't Inception people.

I voted yes and no, lololololololololol!!!!

I would love horror to be a part of this game, maybe on a few signature quests that set themselves apart by having a distinct horror feel. The kind of horror I like is typically a sense of creepiness, building to an overwhelming sense of foreboding and oppression - kind of Lovecraftian I guess. In light of this I went for "Yes, but not the main theme" and "other".

I think you've got to have that buzz that makes you want to replay an old game. If I try and force myself to replay something I've played to death (Arcanum, VTMB, FO:NV, Bioshock - plus a whole load of other games that I've played that aren't rpgs or have rpg elements) then I'll be bored to tears. But if you wait for that time when you haven't played it for a while, and you start reminiscing about what it was that you loved about that game you can fire it up and once again it's a joy to play. At least that's how it is for me. If you have gaming ennui I'd suggest trying a different hobby for a while. It won't take long before you want to be playing a game again.

I wouldn't think they'd need to be integrated with the story - in the same way that in game justification isn't given for playing on regular difficulty and being able to save and reload normally compared to Ironman mode. If you mean integrated in general - just only save on quit, then if you die you reload from the last time you saved and quitted. And yes it is practically the same thing, just makes difficulty a little more tunable.

VTMB's voice acting is pretty top notch, and plenty of the characters have very memorable lines. Even so I don't know important it is to have characters in an isometric game fully voice acted - the fact is if they did they may have to re-use certain voice actors for certain bystander characters which to me makes a game less immersive. Voice acting should IMO be used in a game like this either for main characters, or for characters where the devs feel like a distinctive voice could convey something about their character that visuals and description could not (for example Cicero in Skyrim or Gary for VTMB are both characters that wouldn't be the same without their voice actors).

I like the gist, but not necessarily the implementation. First of all as others have said I don't think an alignment meter is necessary, as morality is completely subjective and not something you should hang a number on - even if it wasn't visible in game it shouldn't even be in the system at all. I think the idea of perceptions or reputation shifting over time is fine, and I suppose it a reflection of your alignment that people's opinions would change - however a follower getting to know you better and your relations improving with them is just a result of them observing more empirical evidence about what they believe is your nature. If a whole town could do the same their perception meter would also shift. Quite possibly appearance/race/background that make you look like a thug/handsome devil could impact on the starting reputation value for a town, but good deeds done for them or bad deeds done against them would shift it in the normal manner. Too little transparency can also be annoying. People like to be in control of their player and affect them in whatever way they choose. Having too many values off the books makes it more difficult to tune a character to what the player wants them to be. Some values will of course be hidden, but it shouldn't be too many so that accessibility is compromised. For some values it's fine to obscure them if a qualitative as opposed to a quantitive approach is better (as in someone who likes you would have their relationship listed as you being "Liked" by them in your journal as per FO:NV instead of using a value like 5, where 5 is the mechanistic number that corresponds to that reputation). I do very much agree however a greater level of subtley needs to be given to social interactions. Different cultures will have different preferences as to what they fine visually appealing (so they are more readily persuaded or seduced by a character) and also what they find unappealing (so they are more readily intimidated) - this should be a combination of looks and equipment. Some aspects of appearance you can change (a haircut, scarring) but shouldn't be able to. How I would like looks to break down is sliders between different values, that once set cannot be changed but both ends of the sliders have different drawbacks and benefits. For example for facial features you could have "Brutish" on one end of a scale and "Defined" on the other. For the most part characters who have a brutish shapeless face will find that most cultures find them intimidating and will react initially poorly to them - but some cultures will find their more lumpen ugly faces more attractive than that of characters who are defined as they associate them with physical weakness or possibly illness. Likewise most cultures will find the defined people with good bone structure and the like to be more attractive and ammenable to get on with, but maybe they come into contact with a hideous race that finds their apperance far more terrifying than the brutish characters. Slap bang in the middle of this you get a character with no real benefits either way - your plain Jane. Possibly some of the classes could alter their appearances through magic for a short time to alter these preconceptions. I don't know as if intimidation should really be linked to strength in anyway either, I think what equipment you are wearing should be far more important. Someone who is armoured to the teeth but has more of a lithe (read dexterity focused) physique IMO should not be able to intimidate someone any worse than someone with huge muscles and a warhammer.

But they are already implementing Ironman mode - or do you realise that and you think the idea of continues is pointless? I wasn't clear on what you meant. On the whole "as long as it doesn't waste resources" argument - I really can't imagine how it would. I mean if they weren't going to have Trial by Iron then it might be a difficulty, but essentially continues would be a very minor tweak - instead of having the single save deleted when the PC dies one time (a value = 1) you can set it so that value equals a higher number (a simple matter of changing the value to = 2 or 3, anything). Trail by Iron would still be a game mode, this would just be a slight variation - unless someone with more experience with these things knows it would be a great deal more involved than this? I guess for me I like very hard difficulty, and I would like to play something like Trail by Iron on my first playthrough - but because Trial by Iron is a one strike and you're out kind of deal I think that would too much even for me. Having 3 strikes and your out (2 continues) would encourage caution and would have a lot of the edge of your seat excitement/nerves of a Trial by Iron mode ("Please don't die, please kill that enemy before he kills you, you're both on similar health - just hold on" followed by the triumphant "YEAH, TAKE THAT!" or the crushing "Oh great, I'm dead, I HATE THIS GAME SO MUCH!") - but it would not be as brutally punishing. I do realise that is the point of a Trial by Iron run, but I would like a slightly easier time of it first time round. Then with later characters once I know what the score is I would play Trial by Iron every time anyway. Plus to me continues are a fun bit of nostalgia - not for IE games but classic arcade style ones.

I went for no, I guess previously I would have been a sometimes guy but I think I'll try and roleplay P:E as deeply as possible when the time comes. I think quests relating to the death of a party member is a great idea, or at least you could inform their family and watch their trauma to make companion death impactful. It certainly would better than the usual companion getting stabbed to death by a goblin and it having no effect on the world what so ever; even loner types would have some ties to the world around them or some form of legacy. It would also encourage players to consider not reloading, as there would be some things you could only find out or experience if a companion died - which adds to replayability. If they did this, I'd probably end up offing companions myself with one character just to see what would happen.

Humour's fine; all you have to do is keep it separate from the more serious story elements so it doesn't spoil the mood - but anyone with a touch of sense would do that naturally anyway. Honestly a lot of the past titles the devs have worked on have had some decent humour in them without comprising their games' more earnest moments or making them generally silly, so it would've been very weird if they didn't put it in for P:E.

Yeah Dominate was what immediately sprung to mind when people started talking about special dialogue options for me too. Apart from the usual mind control enemies to fight one another or make them have a mind blank, how else would people want to see their combat abilities implemented? Honestly, I can't think of any fresh takes on these kind of abilities so I'm interested to see what they pull out of the bag.

I think by now Obsidian would probably have a more unified vision of what they want in the game and what they do not. I really wouldn't imagine they'd curtail their vision of the game by making things they don't really feel would be appropriate or help cohesiveness in mechanics optional solely to satisfy fans.

I don't think I will Ironman my first run, on top of the reasons I listed I do like to reload when I've done something really stupid. If it's a toss up between persevering with a character that for a stupid reason no longer feels up to scratch to me (not because they're not adequate, but because I missed out on some quest I really wanted to experience in hindsight) or reloading, I'd rather reload. I think Ironman is punishing not because once you're dead you're dead, but if you do happen to miss something you wanted to do or find through negligence or otherwise there's no going back. I love playing on hard difficulty settings, but at the same time I don't think having zero room for error - especially from the off - would be very fun.

Did you have to make such arousing models? Jesus, I thought this board was supposed to be safe for work.

I like quick saves, but not for the reasons you may think. I'm used to playing Arcanum and VTMB, which were buggy on release. Quick saving is a very easy method to circumvent bugs by giving you a save very close by to the bugs incidence. Not that I expect this to be a problem with P:E, but even if it had say one or two bugs on release (very good by modern standards) having a quick save immediately before them takes a lot of the hassle out of a bug (finding that the save before your current was two or three hours ago and having to play through a large portion of the game to get back to where you were). Plus I've had saves get corrupted before, quick saving also prevents this too by providing backups.

What I want to know is whether each class will work on a solo basis? Classes like paladin do seem to have the party based mechanic in mind, but it would be nice if each class functioned well autonomously. In fact, by making them work well on their own I think it might enhance how they worked in party as it would make the core of each class viable.

Honestly I want information on all of them, but if I had to pick 4 it would be priest, druid, monk and paladin. I think they're the ones that are crying out for a bit more background and what P:E's specific take on them will be (priest and druid because the heath mechanic in this game will be quite different and they won't have too much healing based magic, monk because people don't think it will "fit" with the medieval vibe and paladin because it resembles the DnD warlord). It would allay fans' fears if nothing else.

I don't mind mini-games, but at the same time I wouldn't miss them if they weren't included and they do require the devs to throw resources at them to implement them properly. If they did have an obligatory mini-game (lockpicking) it should be randomised in a way that meant it was always challenging (for example the hacking in Bioshock was a good example of this, you never knew what pieces of piping you were going to get and so had to think on your feet). However they do always seem to lose the enjoyment factor over time. Non-obligatory mini-games (Pazaak, Caravan) are also good, but again they're one of those things if they aren't there people wouldn't notice or care.

I don't really mind either way, if they can introduce a mini-game that somehow doesn't get repetitive then fine but otherwise a skill check would be best.

I'm going to go for a cipher, playing the suave debonair type that reads people's minds. I'll go with whatever race synergises best with that (i.e. whatever race seems both sophisticated and well liked). I think I'll have a good playthrough to start with too, just because it's nice to have that as a norm before trying out more unusual moralistic options.

I like the idea of P:E's paladins - an influential and charismatic leader rather than a whiter than white saintly type. It seems interesting to have someone who is inspirational because they are a shining beacon of their own ideals (be they religous, chivalrous or similarly dogmatic in regards to some sort of philosophy); their belief - whether others believe in the same things as they do or not and perhaps in spite of it - should be a powerful and rallying force. This also gives them scope to be evil, which shouldn't be barred from any class. Change isn't always a bad thing.

I think all of these things will help to define a class, but it is more than that. Some people have already mentioned soul energy in this context, and I'm inclined to agree it will have great role in defining a class. I believe that in the P:E world someone might start as a class because it's there vocation, it matches there philosophies or it is in line with there combat style - but over time there soul will react to the class choice and tune into it. This further attenuates their focus; honing in their abilities, philosophy and personality because of how imprintable souls are through lifestyle choices. In this way, there is a metaphysical aspect that distinguishes classes from each other - a new axis that hasn't really been covered in games before. I think in P:E classes will boil down like this, or at least something along these lines.

I'd say yes for a lengthy and involved magical ritual with complex effects, but no for simple (the majority of) spells, so I voted other. Necessitating ingredients for most spells would not be a fun mechanic IMO, on top of this they have said they'll already have grimoires in the game - so that'll probably make spells a bit more resource management based as it is.

I'm in agreement for the most part, but reduced movement speed in swamps would just be annoying.

Arcanum in my opinion got it's elves pretty spot on - they were the nature loving into song and dance types but many also saw themselves as inherently superior and more sophisticated than the other races (someone due to their longevity, they believed that their very long lives gave them more wisdom than other races). This lead to great city destroying wars and the rise of dark elves (which in Arcanum was just an ideology) - who believed whole-heartedly that the other races were weak and needed shepherding by elves. Here you can see some of the classic stereotype has been adhered too but there is also a nice twist (and not illogical one at that - the elves kind of do have a point that longer lives should lead to greater wisdom) on what is wholly conventional. I'd like to see a similar twist in P:E elves, and for the dwarves too in that regard. A nice balance is always a good thing.