Death Machine Miyagi

What is the 'smarter', non-cheap strategy you would have hoped to see for enemy mages if not skillful use of magical protection? They're glass cannons, by design, and can only survive for long enough to do damage with the right protection spells up. If anything is to blame on that front, it isn't SCS, but the AD&D 2nd edition ruleset.

Exactly. What made me love it, above all, is that there was so much conscious effort to avoid cheese. Typically, 'hard mode' in a game just means that the enemy suddenly has twice as much health and deals twice as much damage or some such. You've still got the same dumbass AI that falls for the simplest tricks. Its just the dumbass AI is now effectively cheating. In SCS, while there are some elements that toughen up enemies, the heart of the mod lies in modifying behavior. The enemy is tougher to beat, not primarily due to stat boosts, but because they make an effort to mimic the behavior of an intelligent player. Item use, spell selection, calling for help from nearby allies, protection spells to keep still other protection spells from being stripped away by Breach or Dispel Magic...none of that is cheap. Its how an intelligent enemy should behave but usually doesn't because the AI is lacking.

Are we talking the last TOB battle with or without the Ascension mod?

My ideal would be for a game with difficulty roughly equivalent to BG 1/2 using the Sword Coast Stratagems mods. Which is to say, very tricky in many cases and not dumbed down for casual players at all, but also not obnoxious or cheap or cheesy like Wesley Weimar's Tactics mod. If an enemy is difficult, it should be for reasons that make sense in-game, not because the person creating the encounter is trying to create the RPG equivalent of I Wanna Be The Guy or Kaizo Mario World.

A quote I'm thinking of from a 1945 George Orwell essay, You and the Atomic Bomb, seems to fit: Whatever you think of that, its food for thought in a world where someone might be able to harness earth-shattering power not through being born in the right class but simply through study and practice. Not sure if the developers would be willing to think things through to that extent, though. That would require some seriously extreme dissection of your typical fantasy setting.

That has bugged me too, however, Eternity is probably the only setting I can think of where this shouldn't happen. Thanks to the soul system, everyone with a powerful soul is essentially a magic user, so it's not just mages who get to be insanely powerful. And this subject related to the original subject also makes me wonder how social class might even function in a setting like PoE, due to the impact of magic. In the real world, an uprising of peasants might be put down because they tended to be poorly equipped and badly led compared to the army a king might be able to put together. What happens in a world where, with a little study, a peasant can learn how to throw fireballs or cast a charm that makes an opponent fight on his side? There's a democratizing effect when the most powerful weapons are available to anyone. Will the soul system mean that such is the case? Will those who want to maintain their power have some justifiable advantage in terms of magical power against those they're exploiting?

And that's fine. To each his own. But for me, if PoE plays out like IWD in terms of story and character interaction, I'll be bitterly disappointed. I like character interaction. I like my NPCs to have personalities and the storyline to be richly developed by intelligent writers with higher aims than creating flimsy excuses for killing new things and finding better loot. Tactical combat is fantastic, and I find I can't play the original BG2 without tactical combat mods precisely because the increased difficulty and balancing creates a much more interesting experience compared to the vanilla game, but if I thought that was the central focus of PoE I wouldn't have pledged money to the project. Not that I'm worried. Obsidian has a good track record on this front and I'm pretty sure they know, given the feedback they've gotten around here, how important good storytelling is to the people who pledged.

He says while complaining the game is too much "Black Isle" not enough "BioWare". Seriously, though? I think PoE being more like BG2 and less like IWD is something the majority of people want, regardless of how they feel about Bioware or Black Isle. I loved both studios in their prime, but I never loved Black Isle for IWD very much, and in fact never finished the first game of that series because straight dungeon crawls are boring.

Yeah. The thread title, at least, was largely tongue-in-cheek. 'Class struggle', as in a faction in the game with some grand Marxist vision of the overthrow of the bourgeois and the emergence of the classless society, would be wildly anachronistic in a Renaissance setting. That said, the industrial age had no monopoly on utopian visions accompanying mass revolt. Its just by the industrial period they were secular, whereas previously they were more likely to be founded on a religious ideology, like Thomas Müntzer and the like. I don't think we really know enough about how important religion is in the world of PoE to say if anything like that would fit in its world.

Yeah, figured there must be some sentiment of this sort around. And god only knows approaching a subject like this could be done really badly really easily: either hamfisted writing or cowardice on the part of the developers would be more than enough to do the trick and make it all cringeworthy. When I think of PoE dealing with issues of class and institutional racism, I don't think of it being shoved down your throat ("Racism is baaaddd! Rich people are evvvillll!") so much as just being a major factor in how the world looks and how it plays. Its details of that sort which make everything feel more authentic, issues that less detailed fantasy worlds don't bother with because it forces their readers to think too much. If done well, its a step I strongly approve because, while I like killing things and taking their stuff, there are a s***ton of RPGs out there with that as their central focus and very, very few which ask players to use their brains or make value judgements that go beyond "do I kill the Evil Overlord or do I join him?" The world in BG and BG2 (or, really, let's just say the entire Forgotten Realms setting) was one which unravelled before your eyes if you thought too hard about it. You weren't supposed to think too hard about it, nor was it supposed to make any sense; you were supposed to switch off your brain and go out and kill stuff and get lots of cool new magical items. I would be happy of PoE aims a little higher than that.

Ugghh...Bioshock: Infinite. Note to developers: if you want to approach a controversial subject (such as American exceptionalism, early 20th century racism in the United States, religious fundamentalism, class divisions, etc.), have something a little more interesting to say than, "See? All of these people are cartoonishly evil, without exception! Now go out and kill all of them!"

This was actually something like the mentality that lead me to think there might be some dissension at the whole idea. "I'm just playing this game to kill things, loot dungeons and get my character to the XP cap. Why are they throwing a bunch of crap at me about socio-economic inequality and the impact of class divisions on the Renaissance-era political system?" This game was pitched as a revival of the spirit of the Infinity Engine games. Baldur's Gate 2 had a lot of cool stuff, but political commentary and a realistic, detailed depiction of medieval society wasn't its strong point. And I imagine that suits quite a number of people just fine.

Speaking of Arcanum, I have a feeling the class struggle and the race issue could be strongly intertwined. In our world, the supposed 'inferiority' of black people was used as the basis for their subjugation to whites for centuries. Yet it was a prejudice based on pseudo-science and ignorance and those who believe in it nowadays are treated as bigoted idiots. Arcanum had a different issue, and so might PoE. What do you do when there is genuine and obvious differences between races, beyond superficial appearance? What do you do if one race is objectively dumber or weaker or more prone to violence than others? If a given race is physically strong and mentally weak, then might it actually make perfect sense for them to be relegated to the ranks of lowly workers, serfs, peasants and so on? Not that we know enough about the various races to decide if such a large difference will exist.

So they're saying 'class problems' will be explored. Kinda makes me curious, since that isn't a common issue for RPGs to tackle. For one thing, since we'll apparently be getting a stronghold from which we'll be able to tax people, I suppose the PC's position in any class dispute would lean by default to alliance with whatever landowning class might exist. I'm curious as to whether that will be acknowledged. Will our control of a stronghold be a source of friction with anyone displeased with their low position in the social order? If we side with the disenfranchised in some dispute, will that mean being called a traitor by other landowners? Will it be made uncomfortable for us if we're playing a despised race, like the Orlans, and yet find ourselves in a position of political power? For another, despite the tongue-in-cheek thread title, we're dealing with a pre-industrial society hovering around the equivalent of the Renaissance. As such, I suppose a major theme could be the slow emergence of a strong middle class displacing the traditional aristocracy as the most powerful force in the social structure. Perhaps that's what they mean by 'class problems'. If so, will our stronghold again mean we're aligned by default with the decaying landowning class, as against a newly strengthened merchant class? Perhaps all of the above is too weighty for a game of this sort, but I've always been encouraged by J.E. Sawyer's apparent depth of historical knowledge in some of his past responses to questions. I like to think the designers, free to make their game however they like without outside intervention, want to make a world that feels real in a way that isn't typical of fantasy games, or even games in general. A world where there are genuine-feeling social issues, with genuine-feeling historical roots, and without simple answers to the complex question it raises. But perhaps I'm in a minority. What does everyone else think of the idea of P:E tackling 'class' issues? Do you think it will be an important part of the game, and if it is, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Contributed to the story? No, my opinion wouldn't change, except for maybe changing to be more anti-romance. Moving Romances to the front and center, to the point where they become elements/branches of the main plot... well, what's what Bioware's been doing in their games these last few years. And the so-called "anti-romance" folks have already voiced their opinions on Bio-romances in this thread. I have a better question. Why does it have to be a Romance? Why aren't we asking for better friendships instead? Is a close friendship/bond with a fellow party member simply not "cool" or "interesting" enough? Does it not count unless there's kissing, and "love"? I mentioned Deionarra as an example from PS:T. If you played PS:T, do you think that romantic interest was poorly handled? And as for the friendship thing, I'd love more developed friendships. Frankly, I love the entire idea of deeper character development of all sorts and all descriptions: friends, siblings, mentors, students, colleagues, whatever. The more developed, and the more inventive, the better. I hold no special affection for romance, personally, but neither do I hold any special animosity just because Bioware does such a horrendous job of it. If its done well, by an intelligent designer who knows how to incorporate it into the game without it feeling forced or juvenile, I have no problems. What weirds me out about the extreme anti-romance views is that the same logic I've seen used around here could be applied to any in-depth NPC relationship. What, you don't have any real friends so you have to pretend to be best buddies with your NPC sidekick in a computer game? You helped the poor Gith through the Circlet of Zerthimon, does that mean is Dak'kon your new imaginary friend now, you big loser? Well...no. That's just an absurd line of argument. Well done character development is a good thing, whatever form it takes.

People who were happy with...say, the original NWN2 campaign romances must be setting their expectations really, really low. Do it right or don't it at all, I say.

Just noticed I'm missing mine.

So a non-party NPC who advances the plot through her romantic interest in your character isn't a real 'game' romance? Alright, that's a start. For a 'romance' to be acceptable in a game, the NPC must: 1) Not be a member of the party. 2) Advance the plot through her interest in your character. I dunno. I just sense a severe lack of imagination on the part of many people here as to how such a thing could be added to an RPG without it being a juvenile Bioware-style romance, where you get to pick and choose from your selection of hot NPC sidekicks. The baby is thrown out with the bathwater and the only kind of 'romantic' plotline they can imagine is an anime dating sim. I'd actually quite like to see an RPG romance that takes a page from something like The Hunchback of Notre Dame (book, not Disney) in allowing you to pursue a love interest but it ultimately leading to an utter train wreck, with everyone involved worse off for it happening.

What makes you think PoE won't have a specific type of theme? Probably one of the most vocally requested features for PoE is a strong story. You can have a strong central theme, a strong story, strong character development and still include plenty of combat and exploration and character customization. In fact, that's what I'm hoping for.

I am against romance in a RPG that doesn't focus on romance or the romance isn't used to support the theme of the story- it can work in, say, MoTB or P:ST because in both case it supports the theme of the story. The romance was built-in as part of the tale, not as a choice given to the player if he wants 'something more'. Keep in mind that both game were relatively small and had a very "niche" concept/demograpgy of players. Likewise, a RPG that's all about romance can work. OTOH, i am very much against romance in a more traditional RPG where you aren't a named character with a specific character arc. Yes, it could thereotically be done well, be the effort to do so would mean that instead we could have had so much things that are just flat out more apropos. PS:T and MotB were actually precisely the examples I was thinking of when it comes to romance in an RPG being done well...at least to an extent. SPOILERS AHEAD if you're such a sheltered RPG fan that you haven't played the above two games. Think Deionarra, who plays a pivotal role in the plot of PS:T. At various points, she helps you because she's desperately in love with you. Except, as you soon learn, the incarnation she fell in love with was a sociopath. He cared nothing for her and was simply manipulating her feelings in order to use her as a trump card in case his plans at the Fortress of Regret didn't pan out. She was in love with a lie. And then you arrive...and now she's essentially in love with a second lie. You don't really remember her at all, beyond the odd snippet of memory. You share the same body with the one she fell in love with, but in virtually all respects save for the occasional flashback, you are a completely different person. What does it even mean to fall in love with someone like the Nameless One, even in the best of circumstances? Do you continue loving the shell after one incarnation has passed into another? Do you recognize that an incarnation can share the same physical form and yet be a completely different person and move on with your life? What would you do if you met (what you believe to be) the love of your life and one day that person was gone...but their physical form is still just fine, merely inhabited by someone else? And how does your TNO respond to this situation? As cruel as the Practical incarnation was, you'll eventually discover that if he hadn't done what he did, the game would be unwinnable. Do you follow in Practical's footsteps and use her to your own benefit? Do you tell white lies to avoid hurting her? Do you gently let her down by reminding her that even if Practical had loved her, you aren't him? Her role in the game strengthens it and poses interesting questions. PS:T is a better game because of her love for TNO. And yet there is never a Bioware-style string of dialogue interactions which leads to a fade-to-black sex scene or any of that. PS:T existed before such nonsense became popular. Likewise with Safiya of MotB, though less so. The romance with her provides an echo of the past. She is a fragment of the founder, for whom Akachi went to war against his own god. You are the vessel for Akachi himself. She eventually declares that she has fallen in love with you...but what does that even mean? Maybe its just another echo, and the essence of the Founder in her is scrambling her judgement when in the presence of Akachi's host. Pose that idea to her, and she is rightfully disturbed. I still think this bit of plot could have been done better, especially since I always felt that NWN2 NPCs tended to spring their undying love on you rather out of nowhere. But the idea was cool and very much fit with the plot and strengthened it. Is that acceptable RPG 'romance', people? Where it isn't trying poorly to mimic a Japanese dating sim but exists to strengthen the plot? Or is hugging and kissing in general just gross and juvenile for a protagonist in an RPG?

I'm curious about the violently anti-romance folks, the ones who are currently dancing on the graves of the pro-romance folks' hopes. If a game of this sort were to include a romance that actually contributed to the story rather than being a sort of pseudo-Japanese dating sim where you choose the right dialogue options and are rewarded with sex and the everlasting affection of your chosen Waifu, would you object? Are you against romance as an entire concept in RPGs or just against romance as defined by Bioware since BG2?

The sizeable romance budget they started with went straight into hookers and blow. Sorry, guys!

The second Elder Scrolls game, Daggerfall, was a game with thousands upon thousands of locations. The problem with this was that those locations were all carbon copies of one another and extremely boring. A game without an unlimited budget, and without unlimited amounts of production time, must ultimately choose to what extent they want to sacrifice quantity for quality or vice versa. I prefer they err on the side of quality. I'll take a few highly memorable and entertaining locations over lots and lots of dull locations any day.

I don't think you necessarily need developer-made modding tools to have a vibrant modding community. Otherwise, I would have reacted much more negatively to that part of the article. The key question is: without developer-made tools, will modders still be able to introduce their own quests, characters, storylines? Will they be able to significantly alter what already exists? Can they introduce major changes to the game in a variety of areas, in order to improve it or possibly just cater to those who dislike the vanilla mechanics in some way? If so, then I'm content. If not, then there is a problem.

BG1 also featured a large cast of NPCs who reacted to virtually nothing and were largely devoid of personality. BG1 is a bad role-model for NPC creation.