mstark

It just so happens to be the accepted way of referring to 2D games with 3D "depth", as those games are often neither outright 2D nor 3D. They're often rendered in 3D, but only playable in 2D, ie. you can only move along the X and Y axis, not the Z (depth) axis. Technically, 3D doesn't exist on a computer either: everything you're watching on your screen is happening on a two dimensional plane, your monitor doesn't have depth. Claiming it's 3D is just a convenient way of referring to the rendering technology used. 2.5D games often use a mixture of rendering techniques and becomes the logical choice. That said, PE won't be a "traditional" 2.5D game, it will, as you said, be a 2D game with some 3D elements.

Not necessarily, if you know how to protect yourself. There are many ways of avoiding death magic in D&D, especially with a party of 6. Having to be informed before going into a fight is part of the challenge, rather than charging in like 99% of Herculean heroes do in games, is a great game mechanic. In D&D the sheer complexity of the enemies you may come to face, because of the potential arsenal of spells and abilities they may have access to, is part of the fun. That said, I have to say I agree with you on almost everything you say. Making 'save or out of combat' spells very dangerous, almost equal to death, is a better and more challenging option. Much better. In PE, where stamina may be a real factor, this could really be capitalized on.

Because what other explanation could there be for obesity, than being cursed with more than one soul? It's clearly not a lifestyle choice.

This. This is why I love the internet. Oh, and because of this thread, too. Of course.

Shame on you. Go eat a tub of ice cream and cry.

I think the realism issue wasn't so much about the viability of the currency, but just the idea of carrying 1,500,000 gold coins (as I have, in BG2) with you everywhere. An average small gold coin weighs somewhere in the vicinity of 8-10 grams, multiply that with 1,500,000 and it equals 13 metric tons of gold. That I'm carrying. Everywhere I go. I suppose the gold pouch in Baldur's Gate 2 could be an abstraction of a banking system. Like TRX850 I'm not complaining, just laughing at the plausability of it :D.

Gold. The most precious of metals on Earth. But somehow, the most common metal found in Fantasy games everywhere. I wonder why the pro-realism people never argue this point? It's also very heavy. And yet we walk around with half a million gold in some games, with no encumbrance. How does that work? We, sometimes, also carry 5 full sets of plate armor, in addition to a bundle of 900 arrows. Seriously though, games are made to be fun. Like books--an escape, so to speak. Some systems aren't about being realistic. Most systems are an abstraction of reality, like landing a hit with a sword being a dice roll, rather than a meticulous calculation of striking angle, character background, skills, training, fatigue, weather conditions, and what ground cover you're standing on... If we wanted all the tedious details of real life in our game, we could just go fill in our tax papers in real life instead

On that note, I hope we'll soon find out more about the geology of "The World". What metals are precious, which ones can be worked, which ones are rare. Not to mention gems, and what kinds of stone is available. These kinds of things very much dictate what the economic situation of any given area may or may not look like. Seeing as the game has medieval technology and social structure, I guess the answer is that the geology is very much like that of our own world. Hmm.

Feel a heavy weight on your shoulders? Do squats.

I still disagree with the idea that the PE team should spend any resources on building content that isn't available until you've played the game through once. Let's say we're talking about a total number of 50 hours of unique adventures (gameplay) here. I say, make all this content available on your first play through, it'll make the world feel richer. If you don't discover everything the first time you play, you can simply take a different route on your second play-through. Designing the game around having to be played at least twice in order to experience all its content would be a strange move for an immersive, party based, top-down combat, 50-ish hours long cRPG. Should they move 10 hours of unique content to NG+? 5? 25? Let's pretend BG2 had NG+, and places like, say, the Fish City weren't accessible until your second play-through, because it would only be accessible through some obscure reference to what your original character did the first time you played the game. The idea may sound cool, but remember we're taking maybe 2-3 hours of content away from the part of the game most people will play, just to give a nod to the few people who will keep playing it over and over. You'd still have to get through a lot of the same content as in your first playthrough, just to experience these few hours of new content. "our game is 40 hours long, but if you play it two times, it's 40+40+5 hours of unlocked content!". In an ARPG it makes sense because, usually, the entire end-game is about replaying small portions of the same content over and over, and introducing differentiated gameplay in repeated content improves the replayability value for that genre. For a story driven cRPG? No, I don't think having to experience the same content twice, in order to see small bits of content unlocked on your second play through, worth it. But that's just my opinion. Edit, It's even been said by the developers that no one is likely to experience all the content on the first playthrough, which, in my opinion, is more than enough incentive to replay it for a new experience . A game designed in this way doesn't benefit from hiding any content from the player until they've finished the game at least once. What about catering for the really hardcore players, and only unlocking extra content on the fifth playthrough?

C'mon people, there's nothing troll-like about this thread, it's a brilliant work of art . Sit back, relax, and open that big bag of crisps I know you've been craving... let the fat person trapped inside your Herculean hero body out for a bit.

The feeling of urgency associated with the main quest line in BG2 should not be entirely disregarded as bad, I think. It's very hard for a game, any game, to make you feel so compelled (through urgency, or any other feeling) to go on a quest. I very much liked it, because I very much liked the quest. I truly cared about the characters and their motives, which I can't say about many other games -- only good books that I've read. But it took one full playthrough to realize I could get away with spending half a year in the wilderness, exploring and getting up to mischief, before running after my baby sister, which is what I did the next time I played it. Not necessarily bad either, as it's a form of replay value I very much appreciate. There's no reason to experience everything on the first playthrough.

I think we have to account for every potential alien race out there. Including fat versions. The future could get really awkward if we didn't.

When you say you compile the game for the processor; the kernel is the lowest level of software that will be communicating directly with the hardware. AFAIK, any OS/software can only communicate with hardware by going through the kernel, thus making the kernel capabilities the limiting factor (in addition to the capabilities of the hardware of the machine)? I'm not arguing this would make it possible to port a game from x86 to ARM without having the source, just asking. I suppose you'd actually have to compile the kernel for ARM and x86 respectively, even if it's the "same" kernel.

Alright. Concerning the Win 8/RT kernel, I'd guess Linus Torvalds would know, but he doesn't really give much information on his statement: Minute 40: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA I remember reading something else about it around the time of this talk, but I can't find the source. I don't think Microsoft has announced outright that the editions use the same kernel, just that they are unifying their platform, but some tech blogs do say its using the same kernel. I may be misunderstanding Linus' statement.

Skinny, bow wielding, dwarves. I'm not sure I can cope with all these newfangled ideas.

Windows for x86 uses a different kernel than WinRT/CE (It also switched kernels from 9x to NT with the release of Win 2000). Linux, in all its forms, uses one (monolithic) kernel, everywhere. OSX and iOS also use different kernels, as far as I'm aware. Chromium OS, Android, MAEMO, Linux (and all its distros) use the same kernel, for all devices. The Linux kernel. I don't pretend to know all the technical details, maybe the kernel doesn't make any difference. I thought simply compiling the game for the Linux kernel should make it possible to port any architecture supported by the kernel?

May be wrong about this, but I think that by supporting the Linux kernel (which runs on both ARM and x86 architecture) it will be possible. They wouldn't be able to port the PC version, but there should be no problem what so ever porting the Linux version to an ARM device. If the device can then run the game will be a whole different issue

If I bring my party to an inn and stay there day and night, for months, drinking beer and eating good food, I want to grow fat. I know they have limited resources, but we need this game to be realistic.

Spoiler alert.

I think I'm slightly in love with this thread.

Facts (for the suggested system in PE): You can be knocked out, sent to sleep, and get up in all IE games (via spells/abilities). You can be knocked out and get up in PE (via a fairly realistic stamina system, by spells, abilities, and normal attacks). You can die in all IE games (by losing health) and be chain resurrected to the point where dying doesn't even matter. You can die in PE (by losing health) and you can not be resurrected ever. I really don't see what's your problem with this system. Yes, it's deviating from the original D&D system, but only in order to make death a more serious matter. I don't think it'll be much different difficulty wise, just balanced in a different way. My final thought is that I don't think the OP should buy the game, because I think you will hate it. Even if you start liking the new stamina/health mechanic, you will find something to hate about it, with such strong preconceived ideas of exactly how the game needs to be, to be enjoyable at all to you. It will very likely be an awesome game, taking the best parts of our beloved IE games, but it won't be very much like them. It'll use homegrown systems, rather than D&D, a new world, updated graphics, and new members in the dev team. Unless you can relax about these facts, there's not much chance you'll be able to enjoy the game.

@Rink, I'm hoping any kind of tutorial won't be part of the main game. In IE games (maybe not all of them, but the ones I remember), the tutorial is a separate option in the game menu. A sandbox where you can learn the mechanics. Completely optional, and actually quite fun, if you only have to go through it once, and at your leisure. I don't even know how this whole idea of making the first sequence of every single game the tutorial started. Consoles. Sigh.

@Rink, I agree that Morrowind is almost too extreme in it's open world approach. Like you, the first time I played it, I just ran around, explored, and got bored. It was probably half a year later that I picked it up, and actually decided to follow the loose clues I was given at the start to go find a random person I didn't give a flying **** about. Once I did that, the game opened up possibilities for exciting adventures in a million ways . Adventures with a purpose, rather than feeling like I was running around a world that was incredibly hostile, without me having any idea why, or ever having a real purpose behind being somewhere. (I loved Morrowind, but only after I actually bothered to find quests, and eventually follow the main plot line) For the story of BG2 I also can't see any other option than to include the dungeon, a brilliant way of introducing a complex antagonist, and giving you an opportunity to learn to care for Imoen before she gets kidnapped, if you don't already know her from the first game. My point is that I hope PE will open up at the start by placing you in a location that forces you to explore, with a clear indication of where you should go in order to find answers, but not taking you through a few hours of linear dungeon before you're free to do as you want. (yes, you can get through Irenicus' dungeon a lot faster than "a few hours", but the way I prefer to play, exploring everything, it takes some time).

^ This about sums it up better than I ever could