aramk

Awesome thread. The boozing mini-game in BG1 has sooooo much potential

It was done badly because it was tied to a skill (tactics), and only became useful if you invested in tactics. I really don't think that spending character points for better AI is worth it. Secondly, I can write a much better script with routines and proper branching than I can do with DA:O system. For me (although I appreciate not for everyone), I'd rather have a powerful scripting system.

Yes, the convenience and freedom is more important because balance can be addressed by 1) designing encounters and game systems to not assume save and reload tactics, and 2) letting each gamer choose to what extent they want to use or abuse the system. A save system is not just a gameplay system. It is a system of convenience to save state. Do we want to encrypt save games to prevent players from using save game editors? Remove console cheats from the game? These don't need to be because the game can be designed to a baseline that doesn't assume the need for save and reload tactics and still be tense and difficult. You could choose to fight the battle again in which you died, or you could avoid the battle and go away and do something else. I don't see how this is cheesy. That is the inherent penalty in save and reload. But since you can save anywhere, you only have to redo the content you wish to redo. You don't have to rely on some arbitrary point determined by the developer. This argument would have more weight if there was no single save mode. But there is, and that will be plenty challenging and provide a suitably tense experience . Your original question was if minimizing save scumming was too much hassle. I'm pretty sure, judging by this thread, that the answer is pretty clear. Minimizing it in the ways described in this thread would turn off quite a few people, is ultimately fruitless, and with Trial of Iron Mode, honestly doesn't add a huge amount anyway.

Yeah, whose vearing into folk pyschology now,? Who gives a **** whether people can or cannot "control" themselves. People play however they want to play. I don't "control" myself. I play in the way I find most enjoyable. For me, that invovles no cheese tactics, and a decent challenge. The way you talk about entertainment and gaming is seriously messed up. Even accepting this warped sense of value, your "condition" is down to you. If having this feature is worse for you, then it is on the basis of your own character. It's a choice you choose not to make. Accept some personal responsibility for your own "flaws" rather reducing the freedom of others. Removing the ability to save anywhere removes the choice others wish to make. Whose the intellectual poseur now? There is no such thing as "proper" roleplaying. Even in PnP, each individual and each group decides how they want to play the game. You need to abandon these illusionary ideas of "proper" and "real" that have no intrinsinc meaning outside your own head. I guess you missed the sarcasm. Your post is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Luckily no game designer in the world is stupid enough to listen to your ideas.

Well there needs to be basic AI routines and roles. The DA:O system wasn't done very well, but at a basic level you need to be able to set broad melee/ranged behaviour, healing behaviour, and maybe spell behaviour. In all honesty though I would like to see something like the IE engine games where you could write your own scripts...that would be awesome.

That is where you are wrong. A distincively flawed and abusable system does have an impact on me. Not only am I constatnly aware of the flaw, but the temptation to abuse it constatnly flaunted into my face. I might as well flaunt pictures of gorgeous, sexy women in front of your face and tell you to not get a boner. If entire classes (rouges) and abilities loose their worth because of such a glaring exploit, then the system is flawed. Period. Right, so despite that fact that most people are able to control their experiences, your inability to do so means the rest of us are worse off? Once again, this is your problem, not anyone elses. Did you click reroll 1000 times at the start of BG1? Did you save before every spell memorization? Who the hell cares. I didn't do either, but I'm not shoving it down people's throat and saying that my way of playing is best. I set the boundaries of my experience based on what I find enjoyable and challenging. These games give me the freedom to do that. This idea that everyone has to play the same way is dumb in the extreme. In any case, from the sounds of it you actually prefer cheesy tactics and sytem exploits. If you didn't, why are you even tempted? Are you a repressed video gamer, yearning to play games in the way you truly find enjoyable, but wracked by some deep guilt that you are somehow a lesser person for doing so? If you really need the firm hand of the school master guiding your experience, Iron Man mode is suitably strict that you'll be punished for any sort of gameplay trangression you make.

There is absolutely no reason to limit saving. The argument provided in favour of this are just plain stupid. The didactic argument is the worst, pulled from the insane depths of some bottomless cheetohs bag. Apparently, we need to "teach" players how to play the game, and a few self-annointed blowhards are the arbiters of The Right Way for players to play "True RPGs". No thanks friends, I'd like to control my own experience here. I want to try impossible battles for the fun of it and save before battles that I want replay later. If a battle is too hard, I'll decide whether I run away, reload and try again, or just reload and skip. Hell, I redid the Twisted Rune Battle twice because it was damn hard and just plain fun to do. Now some people want to take that ability away from me, because I'm not playing the game the way they would play it? Ridiculous. In any case, there is already a penalty for reloading. It's the need to actually redo the battle again. If someone wants to replay a battle 10 times, if they find that fun, that's their business. As for the "mood" argument, well there is Iron Man mode for you moody individuals, but this game isn't Dark Souls where the dieing is an intrinsic part of the story and the atmosphere. That sort of atmospheric mechanic never has been in any of the games motivating this title. Just deal with it.

It's really a moot point because I believe the general plot outline is already chosen, and I don't see them signficiantly altering the tone of the game. You will be somewhat unique in that some special event has marked you in some way, and you might have a specific trait that sets you above the average person (strong soul, etc.). It doesn't really matter too much as long as it is dealt with in a sophisticated way, and avoiding the most hackneyed expressions (prophecies, only you can save the world) etc. etc. I don't think people should expect to be just some random person who picks up a staff and heads out adventuring. For narrative purposes (and this will have a strong narrative driving it), I believe your character will be a central figure of the story.

The whole point about character assination is exactly this. Create enough negativity around an individual so that they or their endeavours are discredited. If a project or group decided not pursue a project with her because of the rumours on the internet, then the harrasment achieved it's purpose. Gender relations is a sociological issue. There is no "scientific institute" that has the final word. Certainly when talking about overused, unproductive female tropes in video game culture, the "experts" in the field will be those gamers most cognisant and effected by it. For Obsidian though, their characters as a whole are almost always unique and interesting. Gender tropes are a crutch for games that really lack true characterization and depth, and I've always felt that Obsidian create all their charcaters with great care and consideration. I don't think it is going to be a problem, and I certainly don't think they need to get anyone in to advise them.

1) Splitting combat and non-combat removes some element of choice, but not all choice. You still decide which non-combat skills best complement your character, and which combat skills are most useful. What it also provides is more flexibility in gameplay. It provides some additional options to give your playthrough a little bit more of variety. 2) Goal or quest XP provides an incentive to be creative and experiment with all your skills, abilities, and items. The risk/reward calculation to perform certain actions becomes much more interesting. Choosing to fight is no longer a "no-brainer" option. Exploring in such a system is motivated by a desire to see more of the world and uncover lore, to find better loot, and by placing discovery goals around the map. Whether you discover a special location or find a treasure by killing, sneaking, running as fast as you can, whatever, doesn't really matter. The idea that XP for kills is the only motivation for exploration is only true in a world where the only benefit of exploration is killing things for XP. I explored my environments in Deus Ex becuase the world was compelling, plus I sometimes found cool gear. 3) This game isn't supposed to be Icewind Dale. It's inspired by IE games, but not a carbon copy