Adhin

The non-class structure also really tends to bug me as a person who does get heavy into the systems of RPG's and games. It's something I love to do, theorycraft or just make up my own RPG mechanics for a mod or some such. One point I converted D2 over to using mostly 3.5E ruleset once I realized I could... found it lacking so changed it over (a few times now) to something completely new from my end. In the end a class is good in that it allows you to define some general ideas on the outset. Also good to keep in mind classes aren't just something RPG's made up. The concept of that existed well before and still preveils in job roles both in the military and other such things. Good example is the Ranger. That is something that's existed for a very long time and was, more or less, fitted for RPG's and has been skewed, often times in cRPG to mean a dude who uses ranged weapons when really it's a ward of a range. That being someone who protects a wide area. Park Rangers, Police bodies as rangers and so on. It's also just nice to have something to call your self besides your name. I'm not an (to use my screen name) 'an Adhin'. I maybe a programmer (im not, but thats a 'class') an Artist (definitely one of those). In an RPG I think it would be good to set some very basic stuff to start off with though with how they handle magic and the 'soul' 3 base classes wouldn't nessesarily work. But then, maybe it could? Warrior, Rogue, Mage. Basic 3, everything ultimately trickles into that (priests being mage-types). I'd say there should be a host of generic traits or talents anyone has access to (obvious non-combat for all but im talking combat related). Then some lets call it base class only stuff (say, fireball for mage). Then very early on you get into more complex stuff, DnD terms im talking about level 5. Good example is the DnD Wizard school specialization, instead of picking that at lvl 1, pick it at lvl 5 and it comes with more necromantic heavy spells (some necromancy spells could be say 'minor' that show up for all mages). -edit- Actually the 'base' class thing wouldn't have to be a class-class, as with DnD it's more of a general catagory and could easily function the same way in my idea above. In away it's a lot like DnD is setup back in 3E but a lot of the 'feats' could, ultimately, be a bit more open ended. Actually had an idea once of taking all the feats from classes and adding it to the general pool instead of doing multiclassing, just make the base class choice determine which ones you gain for free as you lvl. Though that would require a bit more tweaking as Fighter's get a bit awkward at that point.. would probably want some extra restrictions to make some class stuff a bit more important but... im getting mildly off topic. That's the kind of thing I meant with the major/minor. Ultimately I'd want a general pool for all classes, a general pool for the base class type, and then more specialized stuff that you define a bit later on (or even early on). Would also be nice to get lvl 1 only 'background' stuff. Hell the specialization stuff could fit into that actually. Pick 1 specialization as a background thing, then have those available again at later lvls (say 10-ish, again using DnD as a scale ratio) along with ones that weren't available at lvl 1. The key to that working, however, is to ensure it's not like DAO in that DAO had a rather small number of abilities or, often, they where mostly stuff you used vs passives. One reason I would like to see passives and active abilities in 2 seperate progression rates. Attributes, non-combat, passives, active abilities. 4 areas of progression, the 2 combat (passive/active) stuff falling into the general -> general class -> specialized class stuff. Given enough 'stuff' with in that gives that level of freedom you generally get with more open stuff like say, Skyrim, but ultimately allows you to do a better job of creating that big, burly crazed dual wielding lunatic warrior vs a mage guy. That and, in the end, everyones mostly the same in TES like open ended systems. Skyrim did a lot to do more actual customizing via the talents and I absolutely ate that **** up but.. in the end, everyone can throw a fireball in that game and everyone can use... anything, to reletively great effect with little effort. And, frankly, that aint how the world works. We all got strengths and weaknesses, some more apparent then others. And in the end you gadda focus on something to actually get anywhere meaningful with it.

Yeah I do not like exploding enemies, turned that off in NWN cause its just... stupid. Like I said earlier the idea of having linked up animations like that gets a bit funky when you take into account all weapon type, racial types and monster types. But doing 2 death animations per monster would be a bit less work, i guess. More just more crazy that happens for some (always on a crit-death type thing). Either way some kinda special stuff is always nice.

BL1-2 both just used a toned down version of Diablo 2 skill tabs. I'd like there to be subclass stuff but I'd rather that not just be diablo-style skill trees. Rather it be more like say DAO in how you picked a secondary skill set to add on based off a buncha prestigue/sub-classes. I mean 3E class setup ultimately allows for more customization like that but that's cause you get to mix all classes however you see fit (which can go bad real quick). I'd prefer they not go that route entirely but perhaps having a min/major skill/talent set for each class and, downt he road you can pick subclasses that can also use base class min skills to add over a more specific type thing. Either way curious where they go, but I hope it's not D2 style (like you saw with BL2)... it's kinda old and your stuck with in the fields of your main class. Buncha base classes, buncha prestigue/sub classes to pick past a certain lvl... let us pick skills with in that. Also some kinda switch up between passive and active stuff would be nice. Ehh ill stop here before I get into to much rambly about systems.

Heh yeah but thank jebus it got re-purposed. We may never of gotten the formation based, paused real time combat you had with BG. Far as im concerned that changed everything with cRPG's. Granted the way the actual sprites and paper dolls work is a pain in the butt. Im glad they're going with 2D background, 3D models for other stuff. It's the best of both worlds in my opinion.. stuff you can do with that's pretty crazy and allows the game to look great on a much wider variaty of systems with little bleed in quality compared to purely 3D games. Cause, ultimately, that 2D background will always look the way it does. It's a beautiful scene regardless of your settings.

Yeah NWN did some interesting stuff with its animation triggers in relation to combat rolls. The 'use shield to block' thing (wasn't much of an animation for it really) happens if they would of hit you if not for the 1-8 AC from your shield was the last bit stopping it. Game actually lacked kill animations but a lot of the 'dodged then attack' stuff could produce some fun events. I don't think the actual 'view' would ruin kill animations (if there quick and simple). As they're still fun, even from that perspective. The issue I see, honestly, is in relation to the players race and what they're fighting. I mean in AC, as my previous example which has an amazing array of crazy actual kill moves which are just... delightfully horrible things to watch (love em so much heh). Is your always playing a dude of a specific hieght vs humans that're all the same height (more or less). In this game looks like we'll have a huge array of races to pick from, of verying heights going up against a large list of monster types of questionable appendage number and standing. So... I don't think it really applies I guess ultimately. Just not feasable with the general viaraty in this kind of game. DAO, as another exmaple, mostly had humanoid enemies to fight. One that weren't had no kill animations. Skyrims the only game I've seen so far that has any amount of real variation with and A LOT of its super janky... super janky. -edit- Ahh as per the old FO/BG style 'death by crit'... yeah, I could see more violet animation playing out 'not' linked up to anything the player did happening based off you killing them via a crit (or just a lot of dmg in relation to HP left, say twice hp left). But definitely can't see them doing any real custom animation where you 'see' your guy stabs them directly in the face or neck or whatever like the stuff I was talking about. Though with that 'overkill' type secondary death animations, donig that and basing it off dmg type delt would be nice. You know physical is just extra painful looking, fire like I mentioned in another post, and so on. Could add a bit more entertainment to it all with out needing to link up heights and monster types and all that non-sense. Elementals could explode instead of just fall apart or... whatever. Things man, things could happen you know?

Durability makes little sense in general. If your sword breaks, you make a new sword. Repairing a broken sword makes it a weak, crappy sword. If they're going to add a 'durability' into the game it should be handled like DnD. Each item has HP and specific moves or monsters can directly 'attack' that items HP in an attempt to 'break' it but otherwise **** don't break from general use. Magical items get heavy, heavy bonuses to the point of being immune to most of that. General game durability in games is a GOLD SYNC. That is all it is, it has no basis on believability with in the game world and makes as much sense as all the other wacky **** going on. I would prefer they have other gold syncs such as potions or sharpening stones to add some basic minor dmg boosts or something. That or just control the econnomy better by not dropping tons of gold non-stop. Plenty of ways to do that, that don't require constant player effort to deal with a constant, arbatrary system for the sake of eating player gold coins.

I like NG+ but I dislike it when games are heavily based 'off' that NG+. I mean look at say IWD or BG series, you could import existing characters. So in away they loosely allowed a NG+ style of game. But you get some games (say in the D2 style or more recent borderlands 1-2 stuff) this whole, having to really play through twice to get all the talents and stuff I want is kind of a buzzkill on the first play through. With a game like diablo, at least, it made you want to rush instantly since you'd just be starting over with the same toon. In contrast Mass Effect (original) allowed NG+ (as did ME2) but you'd of already maxed out in lvl (ME2) or gotten so close the few extra you'd obtain from a 2nd play through wasn't going to actually change your base character progression. 'That' is the kind of NG+ i support, and that's mostly because it allows you to get 2 mildly separate experiences out of the same character and game. One where they're progressing in power as they learn there way through stuff... and another where they're already a walking god and your taring stuff up (or have much harder battles... or both). Guess I support a NG+ mode as long as the first play through allows you to max your character out by the end of it (or get super close to that). If it's only the halfway point I just feel a bit empty by the end of the whole thing. Think older ADnD games had less of an issue since you didn't learn much from lvls was all basic stat ups like THAC0 and HP... and... well that was mostly it (or well spells to a point). -edit- Oh and in past games I always just started a new character anyway. But it's always nice to have options available, simple character import like Infinity engine games had would more or less solve this, along with help support a mod community or general character sharing community which those games had going pretty heavily.

I am seriously confused by this poll. Are you talking about the cutsense non-sense in DA2 or the kill animations.. tha tthey didn't 'do' in DA2 but where in DAO? Cause if its actual kill animations mid fight then yes. I like me some kill animations to finish off enemies (like assassins creed, or DAO though DAO was very basic). Granted I think a lot of the kill animations you get in some more recent games are just silly. I like a good bit of them in Skyrim but, some of em are just awkward. Best example I have of good kill animations is Assasin's Creed 2, Brotherhood. Add quick kill animations for finishing off enemies, to me at least, adds A LOT to the combat as far as my overall enjoyment. No infinity game had that, DAO had about 5-6 animations vs humanoids with melee weapons and that was it. Now, if your talking about cutscence on boss type fights where it ends up some crazy non-sense which obviously wasn't tailered to the specific class and play style? No, screw those. Or more specifically make them based off the actual style of combat your doing. Just like the stuff I said above. If you have nice kill animations (quick, not to crazy but fun to watch) high % chance of happening for majority of enemies with any weapon or dmg type (like a dude rolling on the ground as he dies from fire) and just do a speical one for each type for larger unique bosses? Then sure, but that seems to be completely different then anything on your poll. Seriously though AC kill animations are some good stuff, probably the only reason I find the combat even remotely satisfying. Add that to Infinity engine style gameplay and I'd be about as happy as I can get. -edit- To clarify the stuff im talking about is things like seeing your fighter types, say sword/shield stabs the his opponent in the gut to 'finish him off' and pushes him away with with the shield. Quick, clean, something you only see as an actual finisher, or a quick decapitation or whatnot. Same kind of stuff can be applies to bows with the finishing shots being square in the face with a specific animation of the guy dying from being pelted with an arrow vs just a generic 'falls over'. Plus elemental effects like fire or negative energy or whatever, blah blah. Yes to that, no to bad cutscenes (and really, no to any cutscene that isn't going to be tailored to your class/race choice).

I love the infinity engine games to death. Getting all the EE stuff cause.. its more BG in wide screen? That all said a game in that vein now and days like they're making I pray its a mix of 3D models on a more 2D background meshup type thing. ToEE I think did a good job with mixing the two and something better updated for todays stuff could be amazing. I ended up answering no to it but, ultimately I 'would' buy a game in an infinity engine (updated heavily), just not what I want ultimately. Personally I think the 3D + 2D gives the best overall look for this kind of game as with a forced, static isometric view you can do more with the backgrounds that way and as long as you can mix the 3D models to mesh properly with that 2D background it can allow easier customization of characters and ultimately free up a lot of work on the developers side. Paper dolls, from my little experience with them (15+ years modding infinity/D2 and other games)... they be a bitch to deal with man. You can just 'do' more with a 3D model as far a player customization is concerned, visually.