mstark

For arbitrary targeting (attacking an enemy, or making a selection or brush stroke in Photoshop) I would argue that mouse input is far superior, but I know what you mean. I use my keyboard for probably 90% of all actions. The mouse should really be considered the secondary, supporting, input (which is actually the case, it is secondary to the keyboard). Since a mouse with a GUI can, innately, execute everything that a keyboard can, it's easy to forget about supporting the true input of a computer. The keyboard is usually the faster & less straining option for everyone. Everyone? Yes, mostly everyone. Most people are more familiar with using the keyboard than the mouse, even if you're not a power user. The mouse is generally only used for a few seconds in intervals, in order to target the next area where you have to input text for longer stretches of time.

Love this thread. I'm a PC power user, and combine the maximum amount of hotkeys with mouse actions at any time. It saves my poor mouse arm, since I work at computers all days long. What a well designed hotkey set up boils down to, I'd say, is: - Logical, context sensitive hotkeys. Eg. arrow keys turn pages in the Spellbook, change character in Inventory view, and pan the screen in Game view. - Solid (context sensitive) selection tools. Eg. party members correspond to keys 1-6. Mimicking other standards would be good (eg. Windows CTRL key being held down for selecting multiple items). CTRL-2-4 selects party member 2 and 4. CTRL-2-4-3-2 selects party member 2, 4, 3 and then deselects 2. Holding CTRL while clicking on items in your inventory selects each one, then either right click > send to party member, or left click to pick all of them up, use arrow or number keys to switch to a different party member, then drop all items in that member's inventory with a single click. - If characters are tied to 1-6, make their abilities F1 - F# (this was done in BG2, at least, and works great. I have the reflex to press 2-F4, to start detecting traps) Baldur's Gate/IWD inventory systems were golden, making each of your characters feel unique by keeping them separate, but they lacked features (hotkey support, multi select) to minimize tedious things like moving items between characters. I'd like to reiterate, hotkeys should be designed to support the game, not something that is added as an afterthought . You can see how far well designed hotkey systems got games like StarCraft. (StarCraft 2 is worse, as some menus don't have their options tied to keys - WTH? SC1 always did)

Thing is, you'd easily be able to complete the main quest, since I'm certain it will be designed in a linear fashion in order for its story to remain strong throughout. You'd have people bothering and bugging you and pointing you in the right direction everywhere, as it should be . I love the idea of additional, implicit quests. Lilarcor would be one example from Baldur's Gate 2, where, unless you find certain areas in game, you're going to have no idea that you can use some items found on your adventures to obtain what is possibly the coolest (but not best) weapon in game. Expanding on what I said above, actually finding that area did give you a journal entry, something like: "Today I found some strange pipes in the sewers with writing on them", so you're never really left to having to remember vague references found here and there. In BG, even with implicit quests, it's made abundantly clear when it's actually something worth pursuing. I love the idea of encouraging exploration with rewards, which is a function implicit quests of this type achieves. Better than the solution of placing a wildly glowing and sparkly chest at the end of every god damn cave. Lots of this, please. I mean, I don't mind helping the occasional damsel in distress (there better be one of those!), but if you manage to make it feel like the adventure is mine to choose now and again, and not someone else asking for help, or offering rewards. I do it purely for my own sake and benefit!

The Elder Pergaments FTW. The Elder Pergaments I: Coliseum The Elder Pergaments II: Knifeplummet The Elder Pergaments III: Eterrowind The Elder Pergaments VI: Amnesia The Elder Pergaments V: Heavenhem And, of course: The Elder Pergaments: Offline

How is that a problem? It's realistic to come back to an unsolved problem when your skills have improved. I'd just call that a good simulation. I think it actually encourages for more abuse/reloading with this system, since there'd likely be ways to alter your skill (equipping items, drinking potions, using abilities, spells...) to trigger another XOR check. You could just keep altering your skill until you succeed with the check, making the system not much different from the original one, in my opinion just adding further annoyance rather than solving the problem. The key difference is that you're attacking the problem using in game mechanisms. This isn't a problem because it fits what happens in reality: finding a better tool to do the job. Let the player drink potions, use better tools, or level up. It's a core element of the cRPG that you can solve problems this way. I absolutely agree with this. However, do we also agree that the problem with the IE games was the highly random element to success involved in any action, encouraging you to keep re-loading until you succeeded ("save scumming")? The system suggested by you, assuming D&D game mechanics in the final product (which we know won't be the case), would allow you to do the exact same thing: you'd just have to swallow your potion that increases thieving by 20 and try again, then equip a robe that increases it by 5 and try again, then equip gloves that increases it by 15 and try again. You simply try all your equipment in different combinations in order to get the maximum amount of XOR checks out of every skill check encountered. Just like the IE games, it's possible to abuse the system. In this case, it encourages "equipment scumming" (lol) rather than save scumming. We could choose not to to reload, or not to test all our equipment, but it's the most effective way of playing the game. So, in my opinion, the core of the problem hasn't been solved, just been given a new name. I still prefer a system that is less random (immediately discouraging save scumming, and instead encouraging raising your skills), as suggested by the devs (wish I could find where!).

This. This is the essence of good design. Ah, so every game that has ever been made is a bad design? You're espousing nonsense. Making the game especially hard to reload just encourages a different path through the game; one that requires dealing with failure rather than just reloading until you obtain success. No, I didn't say this, you're putting words in my mouth. I absolutely agree that I want the game to have consequence (and I will very likely play the game on Trial of Iron on my first play through), but I don't think the system suggested actually solves the problem, even if it's a step in the right direction.

How is that a problem? It's realistic to come back to an unsolved problem when your skills have improved. I'd just call that a good simulation. I think it actually encourages for more abuse/reloading with this system, since there'd likely be ways to alter your skill (equipping items, drinking potions, using abilities, spells...) to trigger another XOR check. You could just keep altering your skill until you succeed with the check, making the system not much different from the original one, in my opinion just adding further annoyance rather than solving the problem. I quite like the system suggested by the PE devs, but I can't remember where or when :/

I think it's easier than that: at the start of the game a global random key is generated. During the game compile, each randomly branching outcome is also assigned a random value. During play, each branching outcome is determined using an XOR operation between the global key and the outcome random value. Thus the game save only needs to store one key. And yes I've suggested this before. I had a similar idea when I read the OP, but I think there might be a serious problem with something like pre-calculating the lock picking skill needed for every single lock in game for each play through. You could end up seeing tutorials encouraging scenarios like this: If you always start the game with X in lock picking, and increase it to Y over the course of your play through, you will succeed at all XOR checks. In addition to this, if you fail a check, you could presumably increase your skill level and come back at a later point for another XOR check. This could encourage things like abusing potions or spells (together with reloads) to reset the XOR check, since it would have to perform a new check every time your skill value changes. I think the PE devs mentioned they are planning to have a minimum required skill in order to execute certain actions in game, there'll essentially be a black zone: your skill is too low to ever succeed at picking this lock. A grey zone: With a few tries, and using up a number of lock picks (money sinks), you may succeed at picking this lock. A white zone: Your skill is so overwhelming you will unlock this chest immediately. This, while discouraging at least some save scumming, still keeps the random element in game. It also has a similar effect as what using a global key would have, for pre-determining what you can and cannot do with a certain skill range. This. This is the essence of good design. The reload feature of the IE games was amazing, and part of what made the game great. There's nothing wrong with that feature in itself. Unfortunately, the entire game system (D&D) used in the IE games was never meant to allow for something like reloading. I'm both happy and anxious about the PE team developing their own system .

7 days... *loads up Dungeon Master II*

If it's technically feasible I would love to see an immensely huge exploration area, for example a ridiculously sized forest. I mean something like the Underdark x 100. Just because. We could go there for exploring, hunting deer, or collecting berries & herbs . I wouldn't want any of this to have any gameplay impact, like having to collect herbs for potion crafting, as it would encourage a grind-like exploration of the area. I just want it to be there, for optional enjoyment! *dreams*

I agree wholeheartedly, as I'm just replaying BG2 myself. I think there's no way of getting away completely from at least some manual manipulation in a games like IE/PE, it's just the nature of the game, but the devs have said that they will work on good pathfinding algorithms (I think it was said by Adam).

Sorry for going slightly off topic, but the second stance is a cat stance (aka. ready stance, or empty stance) with combat ready hands. In traditional animal and elements kung fu, a tiger stance doesn't exist, the 8 traditional stances being: cat stance, horse stance, crane stance, dragon stance (Kai Leung Ma lit. trans. unicorn stance), bow stance, kneeling stance, low sitting butterfly stance, and single leg stance. There are, however, a lot of Tiger techniques in traditional kung fu, here's one executed in a bow stance: Though I suppose some translations of Chinese may refer to a cat as a tiger. The name of the stance comes from how a cat can leave one of their paws out in front, without putting weight on it, allowing them to easily take ground forward if needed; ready, but not committing to a full aggressive stance. The front leg in the stance emulates the cat paw by having little to no weight on it, making it a "false" or "empty" leg.

I voted 50-65, since I am such a BG/2 fan I'm very happy for the game to have a similar amount of areas & quality (where "quality" would equal quest/npc/loot density of an area). But let's do some absolutely out of the box, wild speculation & guesswork here (please join in with your own speculations and corrections to my theories I doubt even the PE team has any clue about the final size of the game, but that just makes this all the more fun! ): Let's assume the original $1.1kk game was planned to be around the size of the IWD titles, based on nothing whatsoever I'd say this is fairly realistic, as they are smaller and more linear than the BG ones. That means no "big city" at all. That gives us 15-20 areas (where areas equal map locations). I'm getting this number from assuming one smaller city (2-5 areas) explorable wilderness (5-10 areas) and main quest specific locations (5 areas). Let's also assume that when the kickstarter shot through the roof they quickly scrambled to reassess their situation, since making a game the size & quality of BG became more of a reality (at $1.6kk "the story grows", so let's assume that includes more areas). This brought it up to 25-30 areas (it's been mentioned by devs at some point that content density will be closer to BG2 than BG1). This is based off of one big city (10 areas), wilderness & side quests (10 areas), main quest (5-10 areas) They then added further stretch goals, in the $2.2kk update they added an entire new "region". What can a realistic size of a new region mean? Seeing as this was double the initial goal, I would put it at expansion pack size - 10 areas. Now we have 35-40 areas. At $3kk they added the Stronghold, let's assume it's similar to de'Arnaise Keep in BG2. This adds 1 area. 36-41 areas. At $3.5kk we get another city: 10 areas. 46-51 total. At $4kk they will enhance the whole game. I will take this as them meaning to make the content density greater, rather than adding a bunch of more areas . Woop, 46-51 areas! But that means nothing without defining what an area (map location) is! I'm going to assume am equal mix of BG1 exploration and BG2 content density - where all areas have a purpose (quest related) & exploration being rewarding.

In that case, there should be a 'mini' story line pertaining to the dungeon, and you have to fight/ puzzle your way to its resolution. In that case I would be ok with it. Just don't make a huge lump of content sit there like a wart on the face of the Earth that doesn't have more to offer than lewt. From what the devs have said, I believe that's the entire idea behind the dungeon, so we can all rest assured it'll be an adventure worth our time . I'm guessing it'll be a puzzle+combat dungeon along the lines of Watcher's Keep or Durlag's Tower, but probably with more spacing between the puzzles, since this dungeon has so many more levels.

Easily 75% of Baldur's Gate 2's content was optional, that didn't make it boring. The game encouraged you to explore (to an extent). Some might even argue that the alternative content was the best part of Shadows of Amn, and that less focus should have been given to the main quest. There's no reason to have everything be part of the main plot, ie. a completely linear game. Choice is great, and especially when the choices are between a lot of different awesome areas and side quest lines, that all tie in together to form a greater whole . Also, as has been said, the devs have suggested that in order to progress through the lower dungeon levels, you'll likely have to go gather loot and experience elsewhere. It looks like it will be part of the end game (ie. it'll be hard to take on before the main quest is finished). That said, there's nothing bad with going and collecting a lot of power and loot before setting out on the main quest. If PE is anything like the IE games, it will be hard to out level any content (see my first post in this thread for details).

Yeah, they did, but I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't at all give exp for enemies, just that the vast majority came from quests (regularly 20-50k exp per character per quest, equal to 120-300k exp, compared to maybe 20-50k exp gained from killing enemies divided across 6 party members per quest ). Don't take this as exact numbers, but that should be a fairly accurate emulation of how xp spread regularly worked. I usually abandon threads around their 6th or 7th page, seems to be the average page length of a thread before it breaks down lol . I am confused myself why I had taken that for granted, it took your reminder for me to remember it's not set in stone yet.

You're right, it's only been suggested by the developers that they may take that route. But, seeing as this is largely the way all the IE games worked, it's not a stretch to believe it's how PE will end up. Makes it far easier to balance game progression in this type of cRPG .

I don't think the problem of out leveling the main plot will be as much of a problem in PE as it can be in other games (*cough*morrowindoblivionskyrim*cough*), why? In IE games, levels don't make you that much more powerful. Sure, they give you abilities allowing you to handle difficult situations in new ways, opening up new strategies, but you don't start with 90hp and end up with 5000hp at the end. In IE games, a regular weapon would do 1-8 damage, and the best weapons in the game would do 1-8 + 5. It's not like games where you start out doing 1-5 damage and end up doing 768-1576 in the endgame. This way, while you can improve, it's never really possible to completely out level any content in the game. Some areas may be designed in such a way that you need access to certain spells, abilities, or equipment in order to take them on, a better way than simply upping enemy health & damage as you go along. You're never going to go around one hitting anything. Yes, exploring before going on the main quest usually made it quite a bit easier, but it also opened up more of the alternative encountered content in the main plot that wouldn't normally be possible to beat. In addition to this, experience is said to be given mainly by completing quests, not through combat. Even if the dungeon is 15 levels deep and filled with enemies, it'll be quite easy to make sure that by the end of it, you're properly rewarded, but not at an end-game level. Maybe you even have to go do other quests, to get strong enough, before progressing to the lower levels. The issue with where/how the second city pops into the game is an interesting one, but I don't think this will pose too much of a problem either. We could compare it to the Underdark of BG2, a massive mid-game area that you could steam through, following the plot line, or spend a lot of time exploring.

I think you just managed to nail part of the twist that made him really awesome. He'd clearly benefit from the protagonist believing in that he wants to help you, but the situation then goes haywire, with the antagonist under heavy mental stress. But each to their own.

No pressure.

I really like when items have a satisfying *thunk* to them when you equip, or move them around your inventory. Diablo 2 plate/gothic armor springs to mind. And I feel like I have to post this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSlGQpvl_IA

Games that stand out for me in enhancing the gameplay by use of sounds are: Diablo 1, excellent soundtrack, and sound was expertly used to add to the creepy eeriness of dungeon crawling StarCraft 1 & BroodWar, also an excellent soundtrack (mainly the Terran one), where reliable sound effects are used as feedback to all actions you perfrom, as well as action happening elsewhere on the map. BG2 - Athkatla, the sound adds an atmosphere of hustle and bustle to the city, an atmosphere that the few NPCs standing around couldn't create on their own Most Blizzard games make excellent use of sound, but I think the earlier ones stand out more. I don't think either of these games provide a sort of "answer" for how sound should be handled in PE, but they all enhanced to core idea of the game, and helped their success. Also, any game with an absolutely epic score is a winner in my book. I want to be able to leave PE in the opening menu, and just listen to the theme over and over . (Random: Justin, any chance we might see a rendition/interpretation/cover of the Morrowind theme made by you? :D)

They should also float on water, making it possible to cross rivers with your party sitting on top of the largest member of the group.

Early IE games did this too, there was a dedicated "update" button before you launched the game. However, these update servers went down many years ago. An eventual problem with all games who offer such a feature. Games generally outlive their game studios. The steam version will be automatically updated through steam, the question is how the GoG version will be updated.

And if you were the hero, seeking to rid the world of this powerful lord, wouldn't you approach that lord with the necessary protection from death spells? If you enter the castle of a great lord with no clue at all about what he might do to you, or what you might need to defeat him, I say let him wipe you out. It's a good lesson .