motorizer

I agree, same goes for armour, I hate it when your stuff which was good somehow becomes useless because you character has gained some levels By all means give the fancy stuff bonuses but keep the general basic items viable, possibly through familiarity, has anyone played silent storm? if you kept using a weapon in that you became more familiar and got better with it, again this could apply to armour as well. Adds a small choice too. Do i use this new fancy sword thing, or do I keep my old faithful stuff that I'm comfortable with?

I kinda like how in old-school turn-based RPGs, sometimes you'd be able to read about 50-60 books in a library, but your character would basically open it up and skim it for some tidbit. Usually it would be something informative about a creature, or place in the world, or some hint as to the location of some ruins, etc. This was overly simplified, as these were much simpler games, but I think it wouldn't be preposterous to be able to read many, many books in a book-lined room, but have most of them only provide small glints of information. Think of it like a Skill check. "Your character read through this book for an hour, and this is what they managed to find that was of any use or relevance to anything that they know of." I agree completely would be a great way to do it! all the books in elder scrolls games are readable, one thing they do always get right

this is kind of the wrong argument, since the thread is about what it looks like rather than whether it is practical, but anyway, I know plate isn't ridiculously heavy, and I know people did those things in war...but, as far as I now it's not a war, at least not to begin with..an army in a war had blacksmiths, transport vehicles..etc... Human nature being what it is, (based on the obseravtion that we needed laws to make people wear protective stuff such as motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, and that people often override guards on machinery etc..because it's in the way) I reckon the armour would be the first thing to get binned when travelling in a small group (who as far as I know aren't actively seeking battle) If you had to travel across a hostile country, in a group of six, would you honestly put on a clanking great suit of armour or would you wear something lighter and try to avoid trouble If you're looking for a fight then obviously it's different Back on topic...I'm more than happy with the looks of the concept art...I just think it should (and I think it will) be viable to wear something else....after all Robin Hood got away with not wearing plate... and I see no reason at all for non plate armours not to look slightly different on females

Thing is though, you're an adventurer and a traveller, not a foot soldier...you might have to swim, you might have to climb, you might have to squeeze through a small gap, you have to carry your armour everywhere you go, you'd have to sit down in it to eat since there is nowhere to put it and it would be awkward to take off and put on, you don't have a squire to carry your stuff,(probably) you don't have wagons(probably) I don't really see the point in plate armour in these situations...the fact that games tend to have you fighting all the time and don't simulate all aspects of life leads to unrealistic choices working the best. That's not to say you couldn't have a breastplate though...and I reckon having some that are form fitting and some that aren't would be best...keep everyone happy . if there is plenty of armour types that don't all look the same, and no ultimate "best" armour then it's up to the player if they want the team in uniform or not.

I'm currently replaying jagged alliance 2 (the current kickstarter rekindled my interest) still the game that handled this the best...decomposition, complete with vultures and disgusted comments from characters when they see them...

All the soldiers in xenonauts are essentially the same though apart from minor stat differences, they are not really "characters" as such, the main difference is their equipment...which is visible. My opinion...have some armour which looks female and some that doesn't... and don't for the love of all that is holy, just have one "best" armour that way people can use different stuff, which is to their taste, without being nerfed I'm not convinced about plate anyway myself, I really doubt a small party of adventurers would actually use it.

Hmmmm.... as a really old school gamer I remember a game called ishar, where male and female armours were separate items and you couldn't wear armour for the other gender... more realistic, but probably a bit annoying if you find the super plate of awesome sexiness +2 and can't wear it, but no morphing and no women looking like men..... I'd be happy with this, but I suspect I'm in a minority there

Yeah, Fallout Vaults do this the same bad way. Exactly that thing is my single biggest complaint with F1 and F2 which i otherwise love. In these cases i always have to trick my mind with things like "The elevator actually connects the vault with a dozen other floors, i just wont visit them because they are insignificant to me" to enjoy the game. It bothers me quite much. I always thought that was how fallout was meant to be...I always assumed there were more floors in the vaults, and that locations like the hub and boneyard had less interesting areas that you just didn't visit, after all, you can't go everywhere like you could in arcanum... fallout 3 on the other hand....settlements were ridiculously small, as in all bethesda games since morrowind

Not particularly against it, but I do wonder how something like this would affect future games, since they said they plan on being able to take the same player character into potential sequels...if it's enough of a success to warrant a sequel (I think it will be) but as long as it has disadvantages as well as advantages, and if it could carry forward to expansions and sequels without too much difficulty, then why not?

Since a lot of games have trigger points for things/enemies (they aren't initially inserted in the game/level/area until you reach a certain distance from said point), you can easily start an area with very few enemies to render, then as you kill some and trigger more and keep going, they pile up, so now instead of a few initial enemies/bodies, you have dozens (or hundreds, or whatever). So if an area is large/open ended, it does add up. No different than how in some games/engines, even too many placed rocks/terrain items can cause issues. But these days, I don't think it'd be that big a deal in this sort of 2D game, unless one's computer is ancient or the engine itself is really limited in that fashion for some reason. Disclaimer: I'm not a programmer. It may be the case that it's a resource hog, I'm not a programmer either, but I do get the impression from game forums that people just decide something is a problem, or a resource hog, or too much work.... without really knowing either way and without evidence...(this applies to a lot of issues, in fact it applies to nearly every issue ) I've played dozens of games where corpses don't disappear, and I can't say it's ever been a problem (except when overdoing it with the battle size in warband, but that's a mod) They should get cleaned up eventually, for the sake of realism, though replacing them with a rotting corpse and carrion feeders (jagged alliance 2 style) would be cool

I remain pretty far from convinced that it's a problem, If "dead baddie at x+y coordinates" brings your computer to a standstill then you're going to have bigger problems trying to run games on it. and it's going to have to remember whether they are there or not anyway...unless you want everything to respawn constantly Making it an option is the best solution, I don't want to see things disappearing into thin air, but if someone thinks that enemies take up more resources when not moving then they can turn them off....

How can it be more strain on the GPU than them running about trying to hit you with stuff and hurling spells though? Optional would be good.....

I do wonder about this....it's suddenly a hardware issue to have them lying motionless, when seconds earlier they were walking around...with animation, AI and everything I can understand it causing save game bloat, but surely clearing them up after you've left would be the best option I like to see the aftermath of the chaos I've caused

I don't really see the need for different planes....since they are building the world from the ground up they can go as wild and varied as they want without any daft interdimensional travel

How is this a good idea, precisely? An arbitrary stonewall to progress? And how exactly is the game meant to progress once "you" have rag-raped some NPC? If "the ragman" is "you" then who are "you" once "you" have rag-raped some NPC? Once you're that NPC how are you supposed to become "you" again? It sounds more like you're just expressing your fantasies about being tentacle raped like a Japanese schoolgirl. Come now AGX, you need to use your imagination a bit more and see how this type of concept would apply in a fantasy setting. Its not hard. The party in PE could be approached by the monster Rag Man and ask for help in retrieving his body or what about a member of the party that is the Rag Man, and you discover that he is in fact not human. You could even extend the idea where your Rag Man party member keeps killing people when you visit towns, and you realize that someone in your party is a murderer. Its a good idea and has some exciting possible consequences I think that would work much better as the ending to a whodunnit type quest than as something which could attack the party, for a start it's like something that would attack lone people, and secondly it would be difficult to implement it taking over a player characters body I'm all for having weird nightmarish stuff like this in the game though...

Well I don't particularly want to role play a dwarf woman that shaves and gets 5 o clock shadow either It's not about options for me..It's something I find silly is all.. how about beards for elf women instead? that's not a cliche.... I'm gonna pull out the old "resources" chestnut on this one...it would take far too much of the many extra millions they raised on kickstarter to add them in

I hate beards on female dwarves ....please no to that... its not even original, it's just a cliche that died out...I was kind of thinking about playing a female dwarf..and I'll be pissed off if they have beards...

I love it when people use this argument about a game that made nearly 4 times the amount of money they actually wanted to make it...they could hire a whole dev team to work on this feature and still make the game they wanted to.... not that I'm suggesting they do that, its just a bit of a ridiculous argument that comes up every time someone suggests something, on any game forum, ever... Personally I think it's about time there was an RPG where fights aren't necessarily to the death, capturing, subduing, enslaving, or simply knocking out or tying up opponents so you can pass, all add gameplay options...not to mention non lethal brawls

Source plz? Update 15 video

.In ME2 Shepard dies at least once and there is possibility that he or she is dead in end of the story. But still there is ME3 with Shepard as main character . On serious tone game should come to game over when player character/s die if there is story, lore or game mechanical reason why game continues, for example PS where main character is nearly immortal or Fable 2 where game mechanics prevent PC to die or game world has resurrection in some form (like ME2 and Forgotten Realms games) Npcs are not player characters even if you hire them from adventurers hall. So their living or dying should have no bearing to if game ends or continues. At max they could resurrect player characters if there is such possibility in the game world. Changing non-player characters to player characters is not something that I myself don't see to fit very good in RPGs. As it make role playing very hard and it usually causes story to fall apart. I never got shepherd killed in mass effect 2 how did that work in ME3? I don't like resurrection in games..its silly and renders death a mere inconvenience rather than something to be feared

To be fair...I will reload if my character dies...therefore this would not affect me...therefore I don't really care either way

They've already said they want sequels to follow your character...and that's what I want, I want to create a character who has a series of adventures...not someone who stuffs up their first adventure and dies

They have said that they want to make expansions or sequels where you continue as the same character...how does that work then if he/she's dead? how many games could be the story of someone who died ages ago?

Personally i want this to be a game about my character..rather than about some huge "save the world" quest...I would be quite happy if the main quest was simply about saving yourself, rather than being the chosen one yet again if that was the case then if you died there wouldn't be any main quest any more....you've failed it

they have 4 times the fund they asked for... I think its a great idea, for some situations