Osvir

Amazing!! Loving it! <3 Do I spot re-usable set-pieces in the ruins scene (pillars)? I have to wonder if that could play a part in potential modding? The architecture is 3D objects/constructs? The character sheet looks great as well, like all them numbers and reputation and titles and the whole layout. But I have to admit, I get inspired and get ideas.... scroll bar or tabs (with animated page turning) for different aspects of the character? (purely immersive, scroll bar looks odd on a stacked sheet of papers, I really like the concept but the scroll bar looks ill-placed). EDIT: OR each piece of paper is a character sheet ofc! And when you switch to another character sheet you get page turning? (Start off with 1 page, 1 character. 2 pages, 2 characters etc.etc.)

True. But as I said, if we are allowed to add some props (really only props) then we could add our own touch to it. The "base" template would always be the same, but what modders can do with a few props could make each area stand out on their own so it wouldn't be the same area over and over again. Not to mention we could give the areas titles, as well as add characters, monsters, maybe a battle is taking place, or a hunt and so on and so forth. Lots of stuff could be done with a cloned map, as long as there are tools to "polish" it or make it varied/diverse from all the other clones. The very best method would really be too release a blank template of a map, an pen grassy field or a sandy desert area. Then create modding resources for props 100%. Then that grassy field could transform into a forest, or that desert area could get some cacti and flora. Maybe an oasis too even and stuff like that. The power in modding in environmental maps should be mostly on the Props side I think.

I like teknoman2's approach the most, and I'm even tempted (and giving in to temptation as well mind you) to go even further at Character Creation and giving you the Player to write out like a big name-form of some kind. Letting the Player decide what name to be called in situations that might happen or might not happen. Like... First Name: Last Name: Nickname: Evil Name: Good Name: Faction 1 Name: Faction 2 Name: etc.etc. Could be fun to do Inserting some psuedo/placebo-"Player controlled" narrative. Not very appealing perhaps (I admit), but couldn't let this idea slip (explorative idea).

These answers? PCGamer Interview (the answers are at the bottom of the linked page btw)

What I was thinking specifically btw, was a sort of "Rocky Mountains" type of area. As you know, Rocky Mountains are pretty big and stretch pretty far. Pillars of Eternity has the entire mountain reach in the north-east. So basically, if Obsidian made one area with mountains on the north-east side of the map, modders could clone that area and then insert the clones along the mountain all the way. As I said, doesn't matter if the area looks entirely the same, it's the content that makes it more interesting. And if it is a believable area that gets repeated over and over it could actually be immersive still. But being able to place props or similar items on a cloned map would give some diversity at least and add touch to it so that it isn't "same area over and over again". Same thing goes with a thick forest area with lots of trees and little paths. Let the modder be able to clone the area and add content into it. Monster points, maybe a quest or an item that you can find, NPC's, Player companions, hunters, and so and so forth. The small stuff. Another map that could be cloned easily would be a random encounter map, and then be able to add it into the "pool" of random maps. Fallout 1 & 2 style, clone it and let the Player add new content into it. A UFO maybe, or cows that say "Moo moo, I say, moo!" or whatever the modders imagination is.

That was definately supposed to be collateral. How easily a typo can make one feel like a fool! Definitely Fixed (both of them actually xD). As for the topic and a bit of a response to Tsuga C: if a fight breaks out in the middle of the city and some sorcerer is killing civilians left and right and I engage in the fight and some NPC's get hit by my attacks and dies, that wouldn't have to trigger the guards to attack me. However, it could trigger them to attack me UNTIL the sorcerer is defeated. That could be a "condition": Condition: Sorcerer is alive = Guards attack anyone who kills civilians Sorcerer is dead = Guards approach the Player and dialogue starts~ If you killed civilians they'll ask "Why!?" and you get to choose options to keep you out of jail and if you didn't kill any civilians they might approach you and say "Good job and thank you!". Not to mention the fight could be scripted~ so even if you kill a civilian in some fireball move it could be "okay" in this situation. How often does fights break out in BG or BG2 in crowded areas with lots of civilians? It's kind of rare is it not? Oh wait... the assassins in Baldur's Gate 1. I never did any collateral damage but I remember how frustrating the first assassin is at the Friendly Arm's Inn, mainly when the guards right next to him refuses to attack. Also how the NPC's seem to not react at all in Beregost or in Nashkel when you're getting attacked. Same thing with Silke in Beregost, no one cares what's going on. So, whilst I think this thread is interesting with the collateral damage theme here, I think the importance of "reactivity" is a bigger theme. If someone engages you in a city, your reputation could help a little bit to change the values around what NPCs do, maybe some NPC's or commoners flee with their tails behind their legs, but maybe some go straight in and help the Player with some "NPC Abilities" (Stun, Grapple, Unarmed Combat etc.). Maybe you even get into a fight and NPCs gather up around you in a circle and either cheer you on or insults you (depending on your relationship with the village). Regardless, the more I think about this "NPC" reaction deal-io it sounds like stuff that'd be mostly scripted encounters or events, not just random encounters.

THIS POST CONSIST OF SOME GREAT IDEAS THAT WOULD HELP OBSIDIAN & ETERNITY GREATLY DURING EARLY ACCESS! AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE! AND ALTHOUGH THIS IS A LENGHTY POST, THE EXECUTION OF THIS IDEA IS REALLY SIMPLE & EFFECTIVE IN THEORY/CONCEPT! CODING THIS MIGHT NOT BE DIFFICULT AT ALL FOR A PROFESSIONAL STUDIO OR EMPLOYEE! During the Early Access or during the Beta there'll probably be a Beta forum of some sort only available to actual Early Access participants (important that it is exclusive!) there'll be plenty of ways to collect information. Otherwise, having some in-game /bug or /feedback console command which brings up a secondary screen wherein you can write & take a screenshot of your bug/feedback inquiry and send it to some Obsidian bug or feedback database could be something to consider during Early Access. I've participated in some couple of Betas now and one thing I can say is that I tend to prefer this in-game bug reporting rather than tabbing out and writing the report on some forum. I tend to ignore some bugs in the latter and almost always reports in the former. Furthermore, on a Forum it's usually "Take a screenshot, upload it, upload save file, upload this and that and don't forget to explain the bug/issue/feedback". It takes energy from the Player (who just wants to play) and lots of good feedback or bugs could get missed out on. I think that, generally, the majority of people think like me regarding this an in-game reporting tool generates more accurate reports than some forum. When you're "in the zone" you're in the zone and I think many people ignores reporting a bug because they think it requires too much effort to write on a forum. In an in-game bug-reporting tool the developers can also design it in a simple manner that it makes bug reporting easier to do (checkboxes of what the bug is affecting, categories etc.etc.) and the developer get the information they want or think is most important. Furthermore, if Obsidian considers an in-game bug/feedback reporting tool, apart from taking a "screenshot" it could also "save location" or whatnot. It could generate a save~ HERE BEGINS MECHANICAL BITS OF THE BUG REPORTING IDEA: Now, how easy could a tool like this be to create? Well... if Obsidian allows for an in-game Journal that we can write in I can think of a very easy thing to do with that: 1) Make a specific Early Access Bug Tab in the Journal where we can document Bugs. Also allow a "screenshot" & "save" to be attached to the moment the Bug is reported. 2) Make a specific Early Access Feedback Tab in the Journal where we can document Feedback. Also allow a "screenshot" & "save" to be attached to the moment the Feedback is reported. 3) Allow us to "Save to file..." the entire Journal (or just the Bug/Feedback sections). Maybe saves the entire Bug+Feedback section into a compressed .RAR file that can easily be uploaded to "Uploaded.net" or maybe even to an exclusive Early Access Forum. Or maybe even directly be able to upload the Journal from in-game to some sort of Database. 4) After the report is saved (or sent) it clears the page in the Journal (So that you don't re-send the same bugs over and over again). So either you could play the game for a couple of hours and report many bugs and send it to Obsidian (then after sent: Clears the pages sent in the Player's/your Journal) or you could play for a little while and just report 2-3 bugs. Furthermore, if you have 2-3 bugs (or maybe 15-20 bugs) in your journal, when you choose to quit, the game could check if there are any un-sent reports in the journal and then ask you if you wish to send them or just send them directly without a prompt. This way Obsidian would get: - A documented bug report - A screenshot - A savefile of the current location where the bug is taking place How I envision it to work the best: 1) Encounter Bug in-game. Let's say you get stuck but you can still open inventory and do everything except move. 2) Open Journal, go to Bug section. 3) Pick Category of Bug: Let's say "Character". 4) Pick a Sub-Category of Bug: Let's say "Movement". 5) Write the Bug report "What were you doing?" etc.etc. 6) Either "Send" directly or "Save" to your HDD (Harddrive). A Savefile is generated as well as a Screenshot. The tester wouldn't be able to write a title for the bug (like we can on a forum thread), but instead the "Category" would define the title. This is so that Obsidian can organize the data they get. Let's say I send in the two first Bug Reports to Obsidian, then they could get generated as "Character: Movement #1" and "Character: Movement #2". If someone else sends in a Bug Report regarding the same thing, it'd be generated as "Character: Movement #3" and so on. If 15 people would report the same bug at once the program/code could just generate titles "Character: Movement #1" to "#15" in a flash. This, I believe, could help Obsidians workflow a lot. Instead of going through 100's of Bug Reports on a Forum, they could get it nicely organized straight to their desk.

All this talk about +1 and +2 weapons/gear (Which, if I recall correctly, is not going to be visually represented in the PE game like it is in the IE games) gives me ideas and a bit of a "Quest Request": There should be a merchant that sells a +1 weapon, perhaps even throw in some dialogue in there. Make a joke out of it "I have this +1 Sword here! Buy it!" (in fact it's just as good as a regular Sword). The merchant is just trying to scam you

This is a general problem with economy in games. In this example the buy/sell-proportion is either 15:1 or 2.5:1. Problem is, that this doesn't make the game more authentic or realistic, it just makes the game harder. I agree that during the iron crisis iron should be more valuable, but why is it worth less, when you sell it? The smith is in desperate need for iron too, it's not just your character. So in the end increasing the proportions doesn't make the game more immersive. It made it more authentic to the gameworld. The Iron Crisis = the iron in the Sword Coast is being poisoned and it corrodes. This is one part of the plot which makes sense with this mod and it makes the world more believable, because your weapons will be breaking a lot. The Merchants sell their weapons at a higher price, could be seen as "swindling" because they know that their weapons are affected by the Iron Crisis and they are pretty much doing business on that "Hey, mighty fine sword for sale! Want it? Good!" so you buy it, then it breaks. Or you find a Short Sword in the wilds and you give it to the same Merchant and he might be looking at it "This sword is... poisoned. I'm not buying that for a lot of money, so here's a couple of coins for you". Meanwhile he sells off the same sword to some dumb adventurer for 150 gold. What would truly be immersive in this mod would be if items would change after you solve the Iron Crisis. Heck, it would be a great reactive and dynamic tool in the game world. Players could actually get a sense or feeling that they changed something very important in the world: The economy*. Meanwhile, in the original experience the Iron Crisis is barely existant. It's not very believable or immersive at least. There's a a shop at the Carneval (if not all of them) I seem to recall that only sells weapons that break. Nonetheless, after playing the "Iron Crisis Immersive Mod" I looked at the game plot differently, honestly I barely even knew there was an "Iron Crisis" until I played this Mod. Also, I want harder. Read the first sentence in the first post of this thread. * Maybe this is over-the-budget of PE somehow, I dunno, but being able to change the entire economy around somehow or at least participate in the world economy of PE could be a great tool for immersion as well letting Players feel like they are participating in how the world progresses and physically see how their actions give consequences. Not talking about "Real Estate" business, "Trade", or "Stocks" or whatever but being able to successfully save the current reaches of the world from the Iron Crisis is a great example of how Players could affect the economy. Likewise, if I as a Player could infiltrate the enemy faction stronghold and mess up their weapons, items, potions or something, that could also affect the Economy in that part of the world where that Faction is holding out, likewise it could affect the Economy of other Factions. This last idea is quite substantial though... as there are many parameters that could make it even more interesting but would require lots of development time no doubt. Consequences such as making a Noble part of a town become "slummy" or a poor man's quarter becoming richest in the world thanks to your Robin Hood actions. Actions not only affecting the Player Economy, but NPC's and locations as well... affecting World Economy pretty much.

Hello and welcome! Minsc is indeed a great character in my opinion. Easily recognized and easily memorable. Was probably really fun to write him too. With that said I don't want a full-on comedy character though, but I wouldn't mind some quirkiness every now and then from the characters or companions. Comedic situations and dialogue, choices and good laughs really. EDIT: Whilst we are on the subject of Minsc I recall an idea that I want to bring up to light again. Concept, Flashbacks: - Meet Minsc & Dynaheir in Nashkel - Talking to Minsc you'll hear him boasting how he saved Dynaheir - Choose to do so and you are taken to a Flashback Session, you are at the bridge as Minsc (Solo) at the Kobold keep and you'll have to save Dynaheir as only Minsc. - When you finish this "Flashback Quest" you'll get the option to recruit Minsc+Dynaheir

Hidden quest idea! You find a useless gem that you can sell for some mid-gold value, valuable but not crazy valuable. Selling this item to a specific merchant somewhere could make him perma-disappear, cus the gem was in fact super valuable and it made the merchant super rich. Or it could go hand-in-hand with reactive world and the merchant becomes some noble that can give some more quests or influence in the world somehow.

Quoting Wombat: "Difficulty to build wealth" huh? Gets me loads of ideas. The point you bring up about one Player managing wealth and the other Player not managing it til the end-game sounds awesome. It means there'd be more variety in play style. Do you know any game, cRPG or not, that serves a sort of end-game difficulty where you are not wealthy? In all games you are almost always the richest man in the world at the end of the game... but what if there was a difficulty or a game that was so difficult that you'd struggle through harsh rains in rags instead of plate? "Poor Man's Mod", should be fairly easy to create and balance post-release. Just learn how much gold there is in each chapter and adjust the merchants accordingly. Oh, and removing a lot of high-level drops from enemies too.

First of all, I like to discuss a higher difficulty (theme of the thread and my thoughts): http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/73030347037/merchants-will-poi-feature-thematic-bg-and-iwd-like Josh says it all I guess. Do you think limited gold is an interesting feature? I think it works well in Fallout & TES games. Though, the only thing it affects is early game really (tends to be a slower early game). But I also think that if it is balanced properly (combined with a harsher and harder economy) it could make the game more difficult for a harder difficulty experience. I played an interesting immersive mod for Baldur's Gate, it made the "Iron Crisis" more authentic to the story as well as items broke more easily as well. A Short Sword cost like 150 gold, and sold for maybe 10. In the original experience you buy a Short Sword for maybe 5 gold and sell it for like 2. High Level Loot: Likewise, I think that if some High-Level Loot is not available, or loot in general is scarce across the game, it'd make the game more difficult as well. Combine Limited Gold, High Cost Items, Less Loot Drops or Unavailable Loot Placements, and you get a more difficult experience. Thoughts?

Replaying some Shadowrun: Returns with a character named Shoddy Short Arm. I like it. But it doesn't work well in the dialogue, where maybe "Shoddy" or "Shorty" would work better. It's often like this in other games too, few games have "Nickname" or "Short Name". Full name goes to Records/Biography page, maybe even some bosses or plots could say the full name too (a boss or maybe a baron etc.). Plot name. To take it one step further would be to introduce a "First Name" & "Last Name" at character creation. It could be solved quite easily by a "Show/Hide" varibale as well, "Show/Hide Last Name". Which accomplishes the same thing. Thoughts?

Having some fun in Starbound, played it at first like Terraria, but soon realized after meeting the first boss that it's kinda different. It's more of an adventure. The "Collect & Build" elements are still big in the game, but just not as much. First of all, I'm such a loot hoarder: http://steamcommunity.com/id/osvir/screenshot/703982671809781807 And the first boss took long with only an iron bow: http://steamcommunity.com/id/osvir/screenshot/706237801487153609 Luckily, on my next playthrough, I met some friendly pirates: http://steamcommunity.com/id/osvir/screenshot/706237801487192376 And they proved to be great allies: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=206499518 They shredded that thing. Took me, with an iron bow, maybe 30 minutes. For the pirates, maybe 20-30 seconds.

Repeat, too lazy to directly link to my previous 3-4 posts in the other threads with the same topic: - PE does not have Multi-class or Dual-class - PE seems to have an underlying "Role" system underneath the "Class" system (A Wizard Class can play the Role of a Fighter~ not anywhere as good as a Fighter, but still be able to possibly handle a 1-on-1 situation) - Conceptually, this means you could potentially build your characters for Multi-Purposes. A Multi-Role Fighter (NOTE/EMPHASIS: Multi-Role, not Multi-Class) could perhaps be a Fighter/Wizard/Ranger, a Fighter with a Bow, a grimoire with some low-level spells that enhances aim/accuracy maybe, and medium armor protection~ or you could build a Dual-Role Wizard, a common example, a Wizard in Full-Plate Armor, maybe even dual-wields and maybe even swaps to Grimoire to place some defensive spells or whatnot. Or aggressive spells. I've also read some rumors that a Fighter class would be able to use a Grimoire as well (but only capable of some low-level spells). Don't know the accuracy of this one as I've only read about it in some credible member posts here (one of the reasons why I believe it). But it's still a rumor as I haven't followed up on it to read an actual dev comment about it. Anyways, Role-system underneath the Class system it seems.

It's a metaphorical question. Playing Baldur's Gate with my friend is one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. Nothing was spoiled or became "bad" because I could experience that type of Multiplayer. Very much the opposite. Though, I will admit that if Baldur's Gate would've had some psuedo-Diablo or MMO-styled Multiplayer I would've stayed away from it. But that's not what I am asking from it, is it? Nor does Baldur's Gate have that type of Multiplayer. The point I am making is that the IE games didn't have some fast loot fast shoot type of Multiplayer, but you had to really work together and experience it all together. You didn't play separate games or worlds or had your own agenda in it, you shared agenda and shared the struggles of the Bhaalspawn and experienced the Singleplayer experience, but together. Sure, you could be an ass and teamkill your friend, or ignore their reading speed and just read ahead of them or skip the dialogue or whatever. But that's not how I played, don't know if you had an experience with that. The IE games had a great MP which requires patience, it requires more communication with your friend and you need to really work together. In games like Borderlands or in Diablo or WoW or even in Guild Wars 2 you're having an individual experience, even if you are on the same team. But the IE games didn't have that, it was a shared experience and you had to share it otherwise it fell flat and became boring. Kind of like the Portal 2 example/concept I provided in my earlier post, you can't do **** if you only have the Blue Portal. You have to work together. EDIT: I also agree with MReed somewhat. Karkarov, your ideas for a Multiplayer for PE sounds like it's inspired by these MP-concepts that people are not interested in. With an emphasis on "individual experience". A Multiplayer that focuses on the individual Player. Something we see in AAA such as Borderlands and Diablo and MMO's. A game like PE needs a Multiplayer that focuses on the importance of "sharing" the experience. And the IE games does that the best in my opinion. Sure it could be slightly innovated upon, or improved upon, tweaked a little bit. But it shouldn't be a game-changer. Some of your ideas, Karkarov, made me think about games like Borderlands and Dead Island. Fitting for a faster-paced gameplay that you can experience on your own, even if you play with others. Not fitting for a slower-paced game like PE. I'm not worried about people asking for an MMO type of Multiplayer, not even in the future, because I'm confident that Obsidian doesn't feel that way about PE. I suspect it'd be more tabletop-inspired than catering to each individual Player, a shared experience (like the IE games), not a shared individual experience (like Diablo, most MMO's or FPS MP games). None of the latter systems fit with a cRPG, maybe with an aRPG, but that's not what PE is and hope it never becomes that either.

I don't even understand how Borderlands kind of Multiplayer for a cRPG is even compared with one another. Baldur's Gate was also a D&D experience, especially with friends, if you so choose to do so. Psudeo-DMing the game. Making decisions together, letting both read and if not just narrate important bits~ Great fun, much better type of Multiplayer than Borderlands or an aRPG like Diablo 3. Those are loot fests, even with your friends. Portal 2 is an excellent example of the concept. You work together to achieve the goals in the game. And it wouldn't matter whether they did a story to it or not, it was still the same basic underlying Singleplayer system, but divided to each Player (Blue & Orange Portals). Your friend has the tool for half the solution of the problem, and you have the other half of the solution, together you are one. But most importantly you still have to think. None of these, or at least many, of these Multiplayer games ain't got that. It's either lootfest or shootfest, mostly. Which is what I think is unique with the IE Multiplayer experience, it is a little bit slower paced. Not at all like EVE Online or like Everquest, but a slower co-operative experience. Again, I don't care if Pillars of Eternity has MP or not, I am just arguing and promoting what I think is good MP, and what I think would fit into PE and thus promoting my ideas; if not now maybe in the future. And why is a console discussion even part of this? This is a top-down tactical cRPG RTwP. I'm not denying that a proper console port could work that retains the mechanics & can manage some sort of good controller handling... but only post-PC-release and completion (priorities). But that's another discussion. Other games have MP, sure, but so few RPG's plays at a slower pace like Baldur's Gate. Me and my friend couldn't run amok in the first area and gain 5 levels (Diablo 2 reference), we had to carefully position ourselves and communicate through all situations and narrate in-between. This roleplay experience... doesn't fit into an MMO. But with a couple of friends around a table and some dice? Sure. That's the charm of it.

"The official voting period has ended. See the results below." Pillars of Eternity on 41 ggwp

I like it, could work quite well as a checkbox option: "Show/Hide all experience feedback" or something. I'd probably take it for a spin on hardcore.

Good job everyone thus far! Pillars of Eternity is now on 43 (37%) :D it was on 44 (36%) when this thread began. So a slight improvement It is kind of odd, but understandable, why Early Access games aren't available on the list. Likewise, Divinity wouldn't be up there cus it's in some Alpha/Beta stage I believe. Which would be "Closed Early Access", in a way. Early Access games are also "kind of" right around the corner-ish (within a month to a couple of months), so that could potentially also be a reason why they aren't up in the anticipation list. Most of the games in the anticipation list seems to be games coming out late Q2 to Q4 of 2014 (and some might even be delayed to 2015). I wouldn't be surprised at all if Final Fantasy XV came out early Q1 2015 for instance. Similarly, Hearthstone isn't on the list. Starbound isn't on the list. Xenonauts isn't either. Godus. DayZ. There should be an "Most Anticipated Early Access Completions" xD or "Most Anticipated Kickstarters". Tides of Numenera isn't on the list though, which is odd. Or is ToN expected 2015?

LOL! Can a mod please modify the tags for this one btw? I made a routine mistake. This is Dorkly, not Kotaku xD @Karkarov: If you get a pair that's "unfavorable" or you want to wait to vote on it you can "skip". It doesn't skip the number but say you get Metal Gear Solid vs Pillars of Eternity as your very first vote, then you can skip it and you get paired (randomly) with something else. Also, don't feel sad about FFXV getting into your Top 5, the director is Tetsuya Nomura Also director on Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2

I understand you don't have the budget for an MP experience, and I think many others understands this too. When I'm hoping or asking for a Multiplayer experience I am not expecting something grandiose or over-the-top. The IE games has a perfectly fine Multiplayer, a bit cranky but the concept of it is simple. It's basically Singleplayer with a friend or two. Many people whine about the IE games Multiplayer, about petty things really. Sure, there are some things that could be improved upon, but it's not necessarily "bad" that the IE games has the option. Multiplayer enriches any game and fulfills a greater potential. You get a larger audience instantly because you have a great selling point which people search the internet for and buys games for: Multiplayer. Some people buy Baldur's Gate primarily because it has Multiplayer, and would never touch it if it hadn't. You know this I am sure. There's actually 2 things about the Multiplayer of the IE games that really stand out: 1. As a Singleplayer experience, I can create an entire party of 6 for myself. 2. As a Multiplayer "Bedtime"/Narrative story. Now, this takes a lot of energy and time, I still had a blast with my friend. We made up our characters before starting, then created a couple of trials and errors until we got the right match. Then as we traversed the land we came up with various stories and narrated situations and happenings. Even stopped playing for some time and just read some in-game lore books. Out loud. Most of it out loud. If not out loud we checked with each other "Turn page?" or stated "Finished" when we had finished a page, and then we just waited for each other. We also made all the C&C decisions together. Though, this is my experience with it, and experiences are individual. So what I am trying to say is, I disagree. Reading can be a team effort. Narration can be a team effort. Wait a minute... Multiplayer? Multiplayer = Team effort required. If you or your friend reads faster than the other and ignores the other as well, then maybe you should try a different game? Or incorporate it into your character and explain what's going on and what needs to be done. From my perspective, there is only a single "problem" with the IE games Multiplayer, and that is the fact that you can't talk to people at the same time as your friend goes off and does other things (Player 1 looks for Quests, Player 2 goes to a merchant, doesn't work in the IE games as you'll constantly be interrupted by each other). You see, when 1 Player starts a Dialogue with a character, the game pauses for the other Player (and takes him to the same screen). It has nothing to do with consequence, but everything to do with choice. Though it isn't necessarily "bad" either, once we understood this "rule" we accepted it. Parallell thought: So what would've happened if they added a Multiplayer to Dragon Age: Origins like the IE games? Nothing. The design decisions wouldn't have had to be any different. Just have a friend control Alistair or Morrigan or whoever you have in your party. The game would've been exactly the same, the only thing different would be the experience. Mass Effect? Same thing. Finally: You say the design focus was Singleplayer in the IE games? Why am I even asking that question, of course it was! I know this. But what I wanted to point out was that if you were to consider (like, consider-consider) Multiplayer for Eternity you won't have to change your design focus whatsoever.

No they are not Leferd (harmfull that is), but they can be annoying and MANY are outright dumb. Example of many general achievements in most games: "There is a door, a single door, you have to pass it to get to the other side. It is the only way to go through because the game is designed that way. You open the door. Achievement!!!!" Or when you gain a level "You gained a level! Here's a cookie achievement for you!" *pat pat* "Who's a good boy? Yes you! You are a good boy yes!" *woof woof*. But on the other hand, I wouldn't mind getting an achievement for finding a secret door leading to the same room but might give me favorable positioning. Definition of Achievement, I want it to stand for what #2 defines it as. Achievements should be for executing moves and positioning skillfully, rather than just casually playing the game. Best memorable examples I have encountered that has a good Achievement systems (imo): - Risk of Rain - Bastion And...err... go get them! Two amazing and awesome games. So...yeah. Do iiiit!

Close enough? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI7u5UyJDHo