mstark

The bold part here is the exact reason behind my arguments against giving players certain options. Options that, arguably, exist only because of bad game design. Now, I haven't played many new BioWare games, so I might not know exactly what kinds of options you're referring to. In the mad little world that is my brain, there's just no way that the player (us) is able to make better decisions about how the game is best experienced than the developer, when it comes down to options such as those outlined by Karkarov. They're not options, they're major game design elements that are either in a game, or they're not, because either the game benefits from it, or it doesn't . The developers are the experts, they do this for a living.

Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but I remember quite enjoying it. It was different from the rest of the game, with puzzles and fights that were above the general difficulty of the rest of the game. And, in addition to that, it was entirely optional, like every other side quest in the game. I suppose one can argue ToB was rushed, that the story was strained, and the Keep was added just to flesh out the amount of gameplay hours, in a cheap way. I've heard it's not up to par with similar dungeons in other IE titles that I've yet to play, which makes me eager to get to them, since I enjoyed the keep .

Why on earth should a game be "meant" to be played in a particular way? I consider that very idea to be nonsense. I disagree. Games are all about the rules and options that define them, even "open" games like recent Elder Scrolls games have very clearly defined rules for how you play the game. Both open and linear games become great, or fail, due to the limits that define them. That said, limiting a game can also mean a lot of bad things, ("return to the battlefield or you will die in 3 seconds" anyone?), but I don't think that's what we're talking about.

hehe, me too you know. never played BG1. I gave it a go after finishing BG2 twice, but that was before I knew anything about modding, I just couldn't get into it and never got very far.

I didn't mean my post to sound like I think options are bad. Rather, I meant that options should exist where options are due (difficulty, iron man mode, class choices, spell choices...). But, as JSFOCC pointed out, the phrase "Not for me but optional is fine" is very common around here. I don't think that implementing optional game functionality necessarily makes for a better game. Why? I'd rather see developers focusing on a number of gameplay mechanics and make them work really well, instead of implementing every option in order to suit every gamer's personal needs. I trust the designers to select a number of systems and implementing them in ways that work well and benefit gameplay and depth, to the point where making these mechanics optional is pointless. Take an option like quest markers, should they be in the game or not? In my opinion, they make for a cheaper game, one that doesn't encourage exploration, where areas don't have to be designed to guide you in the right direction, because shining arrows are already doing the work for the designers. So, some argue "let's make them optional for the people who want them"! I say no, because even in making them optional, the game designers are allowing people to experience the game in a way it wasn't meant to be experienced. The designers should make the decision from the start, do quest markers fit into their game and for their audience? I don't believe it should be left to the player to pick an option that could cheapen the intended experience. Because, ideally, the game will be designed in a way that makes it a better experience without quest markers.

"Optional", in my opinion, often equates to bad design. A game should be played the way it's meant to be played, make it well designed and people won't feel the lack of particular "optional" features they might want, optionally, of course. Ideally, we'd have an option to turn of all optional options, because... options.

I imagine the "action queue" to be a number of icons sitting in a row, and they'd be colour coded in the same way spells & ability icons are colour coded in Baldur's Gate. Each character would have their own "action bar" with x visible slots, and further commands being queued up invisibly should you need it. If you queue an attack spell and an attack command, the two (red) icons would line up beside each other in that character's action bar. Add a defensive spell and it adds a blue icon to the bar, etc. Some issues that springs to mind with a queuing system: How should an attack command be interpreted if an action is lined up after it? Should an attack command mean "attack this enemy until it's dead, then perform the next action", or should it mean "attack this enemy for one round, then perform the next action", and should the attack command resume afterwards without you having to assign it again? And what about potions, should they act as queue-able actions, or immediate effects? Should they cancel other actions when used? I think the general design principle has to be that it should be unobtrusive, never letting queued actions cause clearly unwanted behaviour (such as a character dying because it had to finish attacking an enemy before healing himself). I'm not saying the action bar should intelligently prioritize actions (never!), but maybe certain actions should overrule/skip the entire queue.

BG:EE is the perfect excuse for me to *cough*playBG1allthewaythroughforthefirsttime*cough*

For anyone interested, the first few consumer grade 4k monitors are starting to ship soon: http://www.engadget....zo-lcd-monitor/ While this model is aimed at professionals, at a steep price point, I'm fully expecting CES in 2013 to sport a number of 4k monitors, and graphics cards that support them. While high DPI desktop monitors are premium now (at $5,500 they're priced similarly to what 1080p monitors/TVs cost when they were new), mid-2014 will certainly see them entering a more mainstream market .

Thanks Osvir, your input is always well thought out and appreciated Just some additional thinking: An action limit could be a good thing, but I think it might get in the way in unnecessary situations, I imagine this scenario: In combat, you would likely never need more than 2 or 3 queued actions: cast spell, attack or cast spell, move into position, attack target with ranged. There should be little use of queuing more actions than that, because, in combat, the situation will change very quickly. So, while you'll rarely use more than 2-3 actions, I think applying arbitrary limits to the action queue may become very annoying the few times you need to use more. If I would want to make a complex move manoeuvre before charging in, I wouldn't like to be limited by 2-3 queued actions. It'd make me have to sit and wait for action one of three to finish before I can assign another one. It'd become an action queue waiting game, that might be more annoying than having no queue at all. The way I see it, having a limited action queue might be worse than having no action queue at all, since if you have no action queue you'll always pay attention to your party members, while with a limited queue you might repeatedly forget to check if a party member has finished all their actions. Details, I know, but my day time job is all about thinking of details, it's a habit . Having the action queue limit user editable would solve the problem for anyone who'd want to limit their queued actions, but limiting the action queue wouldn't make the game more tactical or challenging, just more tedious in the few situations you'd want more than 2-3 actions. I'd compare it to being able to select and move any amount of items between characters in one go versus limiting yourself to only being able to move a few items at a time, forcing you to unnecessarily repeat the action over and over. All that said, I'm hesitant towards any action queue at all because I fear it might overly simplify combat by lowering the amount of attention you have to pay to details. At the same time, I reflexively try to queue actions in BG2 and hate myself when I cancel spells mid-way trying to shift-click, lol. Another idea is to have the action queue "colour coded". Each character has their own action queue, assigning actions while having more than one character selected will warn you when either characters queue is full. Example: Movement actions are green, and you can assign an unlimited (or very large) amount of movement actions ("waypoints"). Defensive actions are blue and have a limit of 5 (that way, you can queue up your entire arsenal of defensive spells and execute them all without waiting for each one of them to finish) Offensive actions are red and limited to 2 actions. This way you can cast an offensive spell, and queue attacking after it. But you can't queue attacking every enemy on the screen for automated combat. You can then add any amount of movement actions afterwards, if you want your wizard to run to safety once a certain enemy is down. Even with a queueing system you'll be performing the exact same amount of actions as you would in a non-queue combat situation, but it'd make combat easier by being able to assign all of them in one go.

I'd love having the ability to shift-click to queue up movements (aka. waypoints), even if the pathfinding works flawlessly it'd be a nice feature to have to navigate in close quarters. Also, playing BG2 again, after having played a number of more recent squad/group based games, I've missed being able to tell a character to cast a spell, then shift-click an enemy to queue up an attack command. The commands would be executed in order, and discarded if impossible. I understand adding the ability to queue up any amount of actions can have a number of implications on gameplay, but it's something I actually reflexively started trying to do in BG2 (annoyingly cancelling any other action I had just given that character), because it felt like it should be there. Clicking an action would assign a new command (cancelling the action queue), shift-clicking an action would queue it, clicking an action in the queue would remove it from the queue. Any thoughts? Would adding queued actions remove some of the fun in combat, or would it ease up on tedious micro control, and let you focus on making broader tactical decisions? I like how the queueing system would concentrate the micro management in bursts (which can arguably be equated to making it more fun). Simple fights would be made less tedious, while hard fights would not benefit from queuing more than 1-2 actions, as you never know how they'll play out & you need maximum control.

Went to the bathroom and the following struck me: Monk grappling could be seen, and used, as a mobile stun spell, in combat you could move your monk up to an enemy that you'd wish to lock out of a fight, knowing that your monk is too weak to beat this enemy in an upright duel, so your choose to Grapple Enemy (stun lock). This stun locks both characters for x rounds if the enemy doesn't save (no stamina drain). Now both your monk and that enemy are locked out of the fight until the rest of the party has dealt with the remaining enemies. The monk would also have the ability to break the stun lock at any point, giving you back the control over your monk and freeing the enemy, with the risk that the enemy will strike a free hit on your monk. While you'd usually want to have all 6 party members available in any given fight, this ability would have some really good special use cases. Say your party of 6 is fighting 2 powerful enemies, you can use just a single one of your party members to lock one enemy out of action while your other 5 deal with the remaining one. Some potential (logical) limitations/perks: Grappling would only work on normal/small sized entities, not dragons or trolls. Protection spells, like mirror image, would work against grappling. Attacking an enemy being grappled by the monk has a 50% chance of hitting your monk instead of the enemy (you would be wise to break Grapple before attacking the enemy, or risk killing your own party member). Monk stun would be different (more effective) than Wizard stun, requiring different saving throws. If the enemy being held fails every single saving throw for each round, they could lose x stamina if the hold reaches its maximum duration. Rather than grappling, this ability could be called "Grappling Hold" of "Joint Lock" instead, which might make more sense. The nice thing is that death will be a serious consequence in PE, so you wouldn't be able to abuse stun lock by repeatedly stun locking and killing both the enemy and your monk, and then immediately reviving the monk after the fight. I know it's not exactly grappling, but it's an idea I had from the OP

It's a good concept (the idea of stun locking enemies and having their stamina drain with saving throws), but would it add fun? It also sounds a bit like it could become quite unmanageable without animations. Say your characters lock in grappling, and you and your enemies will now start micro managing your other characters to be in, or out, of range of the stun lock grappling fight. It would become quite confusing if you have a number of enemies stun locked together (boring?) and have to manage your remaining characters to make you win each stun lock grappling match. That's possibly an extreme example, but just trying to highlight some potential weaknesses (for the sake of refining the idea further ). How would you balance the grappling to not become the main fighting mechanic? Would it actually fit with the rest of the combat system and give it more depth? While I do like the idea of locking two characters together in a stamina draining duelling manoeuvre, wouldn't the actual implementation of it in this way serve to make combat less interactive? Seeing as other stamina draining combat options actually call for more active involvement from the player, and don't lock your character away from being player controlled. Grappling is awesome to do in real life, but does it have a place in a tactical & interactive combat party based RPG? Is it possible for the mechanic to be shaped to add depth to combat, rather than trying to find an excuse to include grappling for the sake of grappling?

Likely a ranger. I just like the entire concept, and we'll be in the Dyrwood after all . I also like to use wizard and rogue classes as my avatar, but I'm currently playing an Archer (in BG2) for the first time and enjoying it a lot.

Loved reading the interview, and it's great to know we'll have at least weekly updates MOAR, because... MOAR.

^If you'd like to experience a world where magic is so abundantly common that it's replacing nearly every single technological advancement of our time, try giving the Discworld books a read

Also, by what right should a player always be able to easily make out every protective spell on the enemy you're fighting!? They're our enemies, and as such will likely do everything in their power to hide any tricks or protective advantages they may have! Don't remove the fun of discovery and learning by giving me all the facts for free, thank you very much.

I loved the magic system in the IE games, even now as I am replaying them 15 years later. Everything about Baldur's Gate 2 & Planescape Tormet is what made me back this game. This thread is strange to me, since just recently there was one discussing how awesome mage battles were in the IE games (something I agree with), and it seemed the general consensus was to implement a magic/fighting system that brought this back. Mages cause you to constantly have to pay attention to them, and re-think your approach to encounters. This was inherent in their design, they are technically the weakest foe on the battlefield, but without the right means there's no way of stopping them. There's even been talk about giving the same form of micro-management to every class in PE (eg. giving fighters a number of abilities to match the number of spells a wizard can have). I think one important thing that the IE games did was allow this kind of mad spell stacking, why? Because underneath all these high level wizard spells was still just a fragile human, with no more (likely less) hitpoints than anyone in my own party. This is extremely important to maintain in order for a game to keep a consistent challenge curve throughout, but to never allow the player to entirely out level the content. There's been many discussions on this, too. (eg. don't start at 100hp and end up with 5000hp at the end of the game, and don't let enemies follow that formula either, keep it a fairly constant 100hp for the entire game and design challenges/difficulty differently) Of course there are areas that can be improved, but that's the key word, improved, not changed. And what are those high level spells with only short term persistent effects? You have indicators on your characters to show you what effects are currently active on them (these could have a cooldown timer added to them, if that helps? I don't really see the difference it'd make). Take this to its extreme and suddenly you have World of Warcraft style fighting, with an endless array of cooldowns and timers before you can make your next click. Part of the immersion is getting a feel for it, and none of the IE games ever needed that form of precision.

That looks like an absolute nightmare. I suppose opening backpacks side by side does have its benefits (especially in a tetris scenario, with a lot of slots), but I also really like the idea of having one unique "screen" for each character, making it feel like your characters are individuals that you tend to one at a time. Taken to its extreme, for "ease of use", we could have a single screen showing the stats of all characters at the same time, etc. Not sure if that'd be good for a game of this type?

I wonder if fire (and other elements) has any place in a soul based magic system? I have a hard time thinking of how channelling the power of your soul can actually conjure up a fire? I have a feeling we won't see the traditional fire & ice based spell arsenal. Pure speculation. That would mean it can't act as a replacement for natural resources, possibly the most defining factor of an economy. I can see soul magic enchanting items, which would have a direct impact on the industry, but not necessarily on the economy. Most role playing environments only ever seem to sport enchantments for weaponry, but in reality I believe an enchanted pickaxe would be far more sought after: greatly improving the profitability of a mine. Something like that would only mean that the rich would get richer, those who can afford better equipment will get greater returns. Magic wouldn't greatly impact the economy, given that there are larger factors in play, like a limited amount of natural resources in the world. Maybe soul magic can help discovering new deposits of natural resources?

@Osvir, I'd recommend that you take a less systematic approach to BG2 the first time you play it, let the story grab you, follow the paths you feel like you should follow because of your own morals and preferences! Don't explore and dessicate the game just for the sake of understanding what was great about it -- I have a feeling it might not work, and may disconnect you from what made the game so great. Let it sweep you away, finish it, and if you loved it, you will go back to do all the exploration with a lot more purpose the second time around . But that's just my opinion!

It would all depend on what shape magic will take in The World, as a few people have already pointed out. A few examples: Will it be an infinite, free, no-consequence resource available to a select few? Eg. create a golem once, and it will work for you forever (Pratchett's Discworld has a nice take on this). Can you create an everburning fire? Can you make a block of ice that stays frozen? Can you permanently enchant items? This would have a great effect on economy, and I believe the most powerful & rich would be those who can hire & control a wizard. In such a world, before the invention of the firearm, Wizards would likely have ruled the lands because there was no way to challenge them. This could create the twist in which mages and the rich are battling to create a new hierarchy. Will it be an expensive, high-consequence, temporary, effect? Eg. You can summon a golem with the power equivalent to the items used to summon it & leaving yourself exhausted for the duration of its existence. You can make a fire burn for as long as you have the magical equivalent to fuel, and stay awake to keep it going. You can only freeze a block of ice by drawing the excess heat of the water into your own body, making you able to only freeze small quantities of water before succumbing to a high fever. In such a world, magic would still have a very practical and specialized real use, but it could never replace cheap charcoal, or ice carried down from the mountain by slaves. In a world with slaves, even the cheapest magical trick might be more expensive than having a slave do your bidding. Is magic something else? - I think so. What follows here is wild speculation. I believe magic will be more special than this in Project Eternity. It won't be magic as we think of it in the traditional sense. It's very hard to theorize, but since it's tied directly to the soul of a person, nearly everyone should have access to it. In one form or another. Only those with enough time at their hands, and the necessary education (in literacy), would be able to study grimoires to learn more about how to channel their inherent powers. Given that the printing press hasn't been invented, the rarity of books would also hinder anyone from learning about it. Few discoveries would be written down, and even fewer would become widely spread. While everyone, bar soulless, has access to it, it's still something that is understood by few. It seems that, up until now, the “magic” of PE has been surrounded by superstition and never any real understanding. Like firearms, magic has only just started to enter society in an actual, usable form. Now, this could be interesting: we'll be dropped right into a world that not only has just invented firearms, they're also discovering how to use the magical powers inherent in their souls! Every new significant invention always introduced a power shift – will we see city states with great soul understanding vying for power with city states that control weapons manufacture? *drools a little*

I think using strategy guides, or wikis, is great! A lot of people seem to think it "ruins" games when all the information is available online, but I just see it as another way of doing research before embarking on a quest. If you like the game enough to go and read about it outside of the actual game, all the better! I probably won't use a wiki until my second play through, if I feel like there's a lot of adventure that I'm missing out on even if I explore carefully. That said, I would never read a step-by-step guide to solving a quest, but I might use Google to find out where to pick the first clue up, and then figure out the rest for myself. After finishing BG2 I turned to a wiki (well, this was a time before wiki's existed, but it was the same idea). It was easier to track quest progress by following the check lists there, rather than keeping track of the quests in the BG2 journal (amazingly immersive as it was, it became a pain to use due to always being sorted chronologically, with no option to sort by quest). I wanted to make sure I did every single quest in one go.

Good you brought this up, since this is a very important point for a well designed hotkey system. StarCraft 2 (and to an extent, 1) made sure to keep all hotkeys to the left side of the keyboard. The main keys you'd be using are CTRL, SHIFT and 1-6, so anything else you may have to access placed in their vicinity. Windows 8 has its hotkeys concentrated around the Win (flag) keys (both right and left on most keyboards), since this is used to trigger most new hotkeys (so many good ones). The standard way of placing your hand on the keyboard for IE games, I believe, is your thumb on the space bar (pause), your pointing finger on Q (quick save), and your index finger on TAB (highlight interactive items). Z is used for resting, and the number keys + ctrl/shift for selecting characters, and F# keys for abilities. It covers pretty much 99% of usage scenarios while in the game window, all neatly placed on the left side of the keyboard.

I believe the IE games never had any morale checks for going up against a larger group of foes? A thing or two could be taken from Warhammer here, which has very robust group morale systems. Almost to the point of annoyance, since the entire game almost becomes about failing morale checks, fleeing & regrouping. It wouldn't have to be taken to that extreme, but such a system would certainly mean that unless a character has extraordinarily low Intelligence, or extremely high Leadership (though I suppose there won't be such a stat in PE), they would pretty much be guaranteed to fail morale checks when attempting to charge a superior enemy and end up scrambling away in a random direction (or less random, if there are friends nearby who will add to their morale check rolls). A failed morale check would have a similar effect to fear or confuse spells. Edit, Come to think of it, I would love the PE devs to dig through the Warhammer and Warhammed 40k rule books and take some inspiration for their group vs. group mechanics . Can't think of a better worked out system for this.