Osvir

Potion Overdose: www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Gx8hYi0hQ

Admittedly, and explanatory, in Revelations (on my playthrough) I did kind of get bored of the defensive missions, and the more I leveled my Assassin's, the less "Defender" missions I wanted to do. I became more prone to stop a defensive mission from even starting to begin with the more time that carried on. The moment the map flashed in some manner indicating that I would have to play a "Tower Defense" mission to not lose a point on the map I stopped it from even happening. That, in my opinion, was the flaw of Revelations. Because I liked the Tower Defense missions in the beginning of the game, but it was so tedious to run across the entire map to defend the points. And when you finally can defend the points by "remote" it's not interesting anymore (by getting "Master Assassins" who can defend the towers by themselves). It should've almost been the other way around, in Revelations (i.e: defend the positions on remote from the very start). So, what do I want to say? The "remote" function was a great feature in Revelations... but the problem was that when you get it you don't want to defend any more points because you've gotten tired of it. All I ask for is that if Obsidian are considering a "remote" function for the Stronghold Defense missions is to hand it out early enough that it can be used before "Defending" has become a chore. Additionally: Do not send wave upon wave upon wave of enemies too frequently. In Revelations it became, eventually, "AGAIN!?". Though you had like 15-20 points to defend. The Stronghold is just a single point. Still! Don't send Bandits and Factions at it too often, I think. Aaaaand finally: Are you considering Stronghold Defense End Game Missions? (A sort of unlockable Bonus?) "When you finish the game you can challenge the Stronghold Defense Survival with endless waves of enemies!" or something I don't even know what the Stronghold defensive missions are going to be like but for some reason I envision them being awesome! - Import your End-Game Savefile - Play Stronghold Defense or Stronghold Attack - Modify Extra Adventurer's Hall Companions (Optional) - Endless Waves/Time Trial. Compare scores/wave completion with community~ Why am I suggesting this?? Because I realized that Stronghold defense can be a very fun game in itself, I used to play em a lot (lots of Tower Defense and Castle Defense games). But if we get too few in the core game experience, it'll leave a sour tooth a la "I want more but I'll have to start all over!" and if it's too many in the core game experience it's going to be "What a bore....". With a sort of "Challenge Enemy Waves!" Game Mode the Player can moderate how much he wants to play it (specially if there's only a few instances in the core game experience). If not an Unlockable "Post-Completion" Game Mode, maybe you can go to some "Butler" or some "Manager" at the Stronghold and enter some psuedo-experience giving "Stronghold Defense" Game Mode and moderate how much you want to play the defensive mode as a "Mini-Game" with no impact on Experience, Story and with no "Weapon/Item/Thing" Rewards. Simply, "Stronghold Defense Mini-Game". Kind of... "I really liked the Stronghold Defense missions but I felt there were quite a few of them so I can go talk to this [Character] and play some more". .... and suddenly I'm starting to think about Multiplayer, but I think I'm going to drop that before I go overboard I'm just brainstorming!! Note to self and everyone else: Read Ieo's signature But maybe something to consider for future installments if you come to the same Multiplayer Stronghold conclusions as I do. One Defends a Stronghold, the other besieges it. 2 Parties with only Adventurer Hall companions or co-op defensive, or co-op besieging.... aaaah!!! *stops*

I'm with you. But I'll probably explore the game several times and try different builds (3 party game, 4 party game, traditional 6 party game, lots of adventurer hall companions on one game, Solo on one game. Ultimate Hardcore of Pain Mode+Difficulty+ Mods mode etc. etc.) I believe I will also assess the importance of the Stronghold during actual Gameplay. "Do I really want to get this?" etc. etc. depends on circumstance. However, Tim says in the update "You will be offered the Stronghold before Act 1 is done"... makes me curious... let's take the instance where I say "No". Is it permanently "No" or is it "Maybe later"? Does someone else take control of the Stronghold if I say "No"? (Some random Faction or a good/bad-relationship Faction?) Because it would be kind of interesting to see how that could be handled, let's say I say "No" to the Stronghold right away and continue on my journey. Later in the game, maybe in mid-Act 2 or late-Act 2 I can besiege it or do some sort of Quest to "take it". Of course, all the upgrades and such would be a little bit behind compared to if I had grabbed it right away but...... it was my choice to do so right? Similarly... a bit complex perhaps but... depending on which Faction gets the Stronghold (If I choose "No"), maybe there could be some "Faction" relevant Upgrades that are already finished? Perhaps even, but this is most complex, get some "unique" Faction items or Faction upgrades done to the Stronghold if someone else becomes owner of the Stronghold. Guard Faction = They'll upgrade the Armory the most if you're not the owner. Wizard Faction = They'll upgrade the Library the most if you're not the owner. Rogue Faction = They'll upgrade the Mission-relevant section if you're not the owner (or something "Information" or "Spying" relevant). Furthermore, turning it around, something I asked a couple of pages ago... what happens if I say "Yes" to the Stronghold the second I can get it and later in the game I lose it to some Faction. Do we simply barge in and destroy as many intruders as possible until they run away? And also, a little bit "gamifying" but it makes sense somewhat.... about being "notified" of an attack on the Stronghold. Assassin's Creed: Revelations got a pretty neat mechanic where you can defend your points on the map "on remote". Could the notifications kind of work like that? "Defend the Stronghold!" but you don't really need to walk back, instead you get to control your "Adventurer's Hall"+VIP companions stationed at the Stronghold and defend it "On remote"... so to speak. I think it could be a nice little feature instead of "Gosh now I have to walk back through the world map to the Stronghold, deal with the attackers and then go back to this place". It could be: "Okay I'll take control of my guys over at the Stronghold and then when it's done I'll get back to where I left off with my adventuring party". This too should be optional of course a la some notification~ (carrier pigeon) "Do you want to go home to base or should we take care of it?", maybe I want to go all the way back and flank the attacking enemies or my adventuring party is much stronger than what I have in the Stronghold (safety first, sometimes). Finally: If the attack is immensely powerful, could you ask for aid from friendly Factions? - "There's no end to them!!" - "Run to the pigeon nest! Quick! We have to get reinforcements!!" or send some runner or something

TEP The Eternity Project ^^

First impression: Real-Time w/ 2 (Version 2? Too?) Now to read. Sorry xD

What about medical measures? Bandages? Needle and thread? Maybe some medieval aspirin for a magically invoked headache some sort of natural herb? Will there be doctors in the game that can "heal" health, and if PE decides to have some of it, will there be ways for the Player to learn some of it? I'm thinking of a sort of hybrid/combination between Plague Doctors (Assassin's Creed, Location based) and First Aid/Doctor (Fallout, Skill based) elements. Will there be injuries, can you treat them? Can you get permanent injuries too? (Lose an eye, hand, leg, get some sort of sickness~) The latter is a sort of suggestion for the hardest hardest difficulty. It'd be a sort of achievement to get through the game all battered and worn, with only one arm, partial blindness, heart problems and whatnot and managing to defeat the last poss whilst being handicapped. Difficult as **** but tactically "manageable". Of course, the game should already be super difficult without this, I'm just asking for an element to make it even more difficult based on "Luck" (I guess).

Our ranged weapons do good damage, but can't compete blow-for-blow with two-handed melee weapons. The exceptions to this are firearms, but they are relatively inaccurate and slow to reload. Sounds very reasonable. Got to jump straight to curiosity: Is it too soon to discuss/reveal "Rules of Engagement (Ranged)"? ;D Are you considering "Line of Fire" elements? (Got an ally in front of the shot = Lower Accuracy, potential Friendly Fire*?) * Strike through for some sort of effect *shrug* I'm still curious if Ranged weaponry can handle Friendly Fire in a RTwP environment or if it is a difficult element to handle for Archery in a game like this. It's not something I can say that I've seen 100% for sure, about 80% sure I've seen it. I do recall having seen it in some Turn-Based semi-hexgrid deal where you can potentially shoot your own units if they are in the way... can't remember which game though..... right Disgaea... but that's for targeted abilities. So not really the same thing I'm flirting with.

Playing some ToEE, got me a nice little Ranger. Anyways, something struck me as I was playing it. Not because it is a mechanic in ToEE or anything, but I keep moving my Ranger into an open "Line of Sight" position (because it makes sense to me, and it becomes a little bit more immersive). If not flirting with "Friendly Fire" as a feature for Archers, could you get an Accuracy Plus or Minus depending on obstacles in the line of fire? In essence: If you have a Figher in your Line of Fire, could that affect the Line of Fire somehow? "You lo se 25% chance to hit" or something. Just thought I'd press this into the discussion. - Target is not obstructed by an ally or object: Higher chance to hit - Target is obstructed by an ally or object: Lower chance to hit Makes sense? Thus, positioning becomes more important but you can still hit an enemy that is obstructed.... and possibly Friendly Fire

I'll bite. Design your own life brother, Obsidian isn't responsible for your actions in your life. If fights start in your family it isn't Obsidian's fault, but probably something on your end. But aaah, some ideas... you have many choices but I'll go through 3 rather basic ones. Pick one or combine as you please: A) Neglect your family, play the video game for 24 hours a day and isolate yourself in the basement and hide away. Fights will ensue no doubt. B) Invite your family to the experience. Reward your children by giving them the controller if they do their homework. The wife should like that (possibly). Oh, and help your children with the homework too for bonus points. Make choices in the game with the family. Take turns playing. Make it into an optional family "event" for those who are interested in joining in ("Game night" or whatever). Maybe even "Bedtime Gaming" for the children before bed, making it into a "Bedtime Story" but with the game instead of a book (I don't know the age of your children though, PE might be rather gritty, gory and dark). C) Play a couple of hours a week. 1 hour every other day maybe. Make sure that you are clear that this is your alone time for meditative reasons or whatnot. Do you have any hobby already that you spend time with? Can you replace it with PE for the duration you are playing? Because I wouldn't believe you are glued to your wife 100% of the time anyways. Combine with . Play extra when you have time and/or is free (if you get home before the family or whatnot). Lay the bricks day by day. Finally: Discuss with your wife when the game has actually come out, I suppose, and you are actually playing it. Make sure you prioritize in a logical way depending on your situation in life and depending on the day. Play reasonably, eat your vegetables and don't forget your real life friends and family. Baldur's Gate had a reminder during the loading screen sometimes: "Just because the characters in game doesn't need to eat, doesn't mean you don't have to!" or something like that xD I suppose there could be some messages like that during loading screens? "You have played this game for 53 hours straight! Have you eaten anything yet?"

We already know there won't be resurrection/raise dead magic in PE, nor (much) healing magic for that matter, so that one's out. Animating them as zombie minions sounds cool though. Macabre, but cool. Sounds awesome. Become a mythical figure a la Count Dracula (conceptually). Is the Stronghold a sort of "Landowner" type deal (what with taxes and all) or can it be an isolated and individual location not necessarily tied to a deed of land? Or is the Stronghold tied to a Players "faction"? What kind of upgrades can we see the Stronghold undergo? Infernal? Undead? (as spoken of before) Druidic? Human? Dwarvish~? (Tunnels/Underground) Wizard Tower? Or is it a "Various different aspects" type of Stronghold? (The Library can upgrade to a Wizards Tower, the west wing into an armory etc. etc.).

I want to chime in with these two chaps. Great update, the Stronghold sounds exciting :D the notification business is really the only thing that made me raise a curious eyebrow a la "How will this be handled?". Of course it is nice to get notified so that you can defend the place, but getting spammed and/or getting informed in another situation where I am engaged and/or immersed will break the experience. Kind of: "What an awesome place I am in, the story is great, the enemies are challeng.... *beep beep beep* ... stronghold attacked!?!? Need to defend!!". And also getting notified in the middle of a battle and hearing "You are being attacked!!" could get stressful. How exactly do you get notified? And can you somehow "turn off" the notification (I.E: telling your stronghold management team "Don't notify me when I am out in the world"). Or is it "notified" between instances? (When you are about to exit or enter an new area) Some ideas: - Messenger Birds & Messengers, Runners (Over land) - As for Dungeons I think there could be a Stronghold upgrade (depending on how Cipher's work) that allows a Cipher to telepathically communicate with your character. - Running out of a dungeon and finding a dead messenger near a random small spawned mob (3-4 units) that carries a message "You are being attacked!!". This allows me to possibly finish an entire dungeon (or as I need to go and make a pit stop near a camping area) and get also get immersed into the sense of protecting my castle (after all, how long has the messenger been lying there? Maybe I'll return to the stronghold and it is heavily under siege). Final questions: What happens if the Stronghold is lost to the attackers? Who are the attackers and who can they be? (Rival Factions or random mobs of enemies?) In case other "powers" can occupy the Stronghold, how does that affect the land around it and how does it affect Factions? Can I also send parties on expeditions to explore the reaches outside the Player explorable world in PE? (Outside of the map pretty much) Again, great update and great features :D I'm really looking forward to this game experience.

I like your points, but these 2 I wanted to just discuss and go a little bit further with. 1. I agree. Similarly, Leliana's (Dragon Age: Origins) presentation in one of the first trailers was awesome. It was like she was casting a spell when she made the Acid Arrow or whatnot. Arrow Spells or whatnot could have a sort of "Casting Time". As if they are Chanting or Vocalizing the spell "Turn to ashes!" and then fire a fire arrow. The issue, in my opinion (now that I think about it) is that many of these "Magical Arrow" spells (such as "Volley of arrows!") is that they are instant cast, instant effect. But aah, I went off-track a bit. Just really wanted to say that I do think that the concept of "Volley of Arrows" is a nice ability, but in DA2 (specially DA2) it was an "Every battle, every time" type of ability that you could use over and over and over again. Furthermore, "Arrows" is kind of an Archers "mana points". Can Arrow/Bow Spells work with an "Arrow Points" mechanic? Volley of Arrows = Deals more damage the more arrows you have (Consumes 1/2 Arrows Used/Damage potential higher/lower depending on how many arrows used). Maybe the AoE gets wider/larger the more arrows are used in the ability. Fire Arrow = Deals Arrow*2+Fire Damage (Consumes Arrow) Not to forget to mention combo-spells, what happens if a Wizard and an Archer collaborates in their attacks? 1 concept that comes to mind: Wizard opens a portal in front of archer, and one portal above enemy. Archer shoots one arrow into portal, Wizard absorbs the energy and shoots a volley of magical arrow-like energy out at the enemy (or something). Consumes = You won't be able to pick up any of the arrows consumed after usage. Etc. etc. 4. The difference is range really. You can one-shot a Wolf with a two-handed sword, but there is risk involved and you might lose health (and even possibly die, I've done it several times on some of my BG games and lost my Fighter or Monk to the wolf-beasts in the starting area = Game over). There is no risk involved whatsoever with the use of a bow. I like both the risk the Fighter is put in, and I also like the safety the Archer is in. The only real issue I have is that there is almost too much safety and no risk for the Archer-type in the IE games.

1. Friendly fire One thing that IE games lacked was simulation of terrain height differences. In reality archers would tend to pick spots where they can shoot over obstacles - but as that's not possible in this game, I think we just need to imagine that's what the archers in the game are doing. I think it'd be a mistake to implement a simple 2D collision detection based FF mechanic. FF is potentially a good idea though. I think the game should first wait for a "critical fumble" of sorts and then check if there's someone (a friend or enemy) close to the intended target or along the line of fire - not the other way around. That said, I'd hate it if FF is a major concern that's used to balance otherwise overpowered archers. At least I'd like my squad to have a good enough AI that they don't shoot each other - make them prefer targets that are safe to pick and side-step when someone gets in the way. 2. Environmental concerns While rain and foliage do make archery more difficult, they can also make actively avoiding arrows more difficult. It's hard to evade in time if it's hard to see the release of the arrow. And for obvious reasons a humid swamp would be deadly if you have no shield and you're facing an archer. (As an aside note: I hope the terrain type is a factor in this game.) But I do agree that blindness would make archery mostly useless and potentially dangerous to allies. 3. Aimed Shots/GUI Shots How much archers arch their shots depends only on the range of the enemy. That's how they aim for range. If you try to shoot an arrow at half speed you lose 75% of the kinetic energy and most of your accuracy. My main concern, throughout my entire post, is that Archers do kind of get a powerful free "auto-attack" ability which rivals the power of glass cannons in many RPGs and action games. Archers tend to be a powerful asset. This is something I think should be balanced. 1. Great points! And I agree mostly and what you say makes sense. I still think Friendly Fire is a viable solution, but dice rolls is a bit of a risky stretch a la "My bow-user might shoot my Fighter in the back if I use his bow hmmm" which kind of sucks. That's why I thought that "line of fire" shots would be a great solution. But you brought up the aspect I forgot, and that's the AI. I could simply position myself so that the AI archers are shooting their own allies in the back. BUT! I do think close-combat in PE isn't like the IE games though, if you are engaged in a fight in close combat you won't be able to re-position yourself as easily as you can in the IE games. Coding the AI to simply shoot to get a clear shot (without hitting their allies in the back) is the only issue in that case. A picture to explain what I'm thinking: Grey dots = Player Characters Black dots = AI A = Close-combat~ there is no real reason to why the Archer dots are outside the circle but thought it'd be easier to focus in on the area like that. There is an escape route from B's clear line of fire, but that might make the enemy close-combat combatant interrupt the movement and deal a lot of damage to our own character too. B = Enemy Archer has a clear line of fire on our Fighter. C = Our own Archer has a wide open fire on the enemy Archer. This is the best option in this situation, our Fighter is way out of line of fire so there is no "risk" that we'll hit an ally. A clear shot to take out their Archer with our own Archer. Use all the chess pieces to deal with the battle type of deal. [EDIT]Furthermore, non of the Archers are "locked" in any sort of engagement so they are "free" to move as they please without interruption. So in the case of our Fighter being able to make the move without taking damage from the AI Fighter, the enemy Archer can re-position[/EDIT] If Close-Combat in PE is in any way like I think it is (like the above) and even moving your Fighter (in this case) out of the position might make their Archer deal damage to you for moving away from it, then maybe there is a possibility to code the AI to not shoot their allies in the backs, and it'd be a risky move for the Player to even try to abuse it in the first place (Engagement Circle stuff, Josh talked about it in an update some time ago). FF naturally makes Archers more of a potential hazard in corridors, and instantly they aren't as "overpowered" in closed quarters. Perk idea: "Shoot over shoulder - As a masterful and accurate fancy pants Archer you can now securely aim and shoot past your friends terrified faces. Give's an X% chance to hit over your allies shoulder" = Practically it'd give a chance to shoot "through" your Allies as seen in the IE games. Who is to say that some higher level AI enemies couldn't have perks too after all? 2. Makes sense, great points. Didn't think about the difficulty of evading in rain and such 3. Aimed shots were kind of a supplement of 1, an extension or expansion to the idea in point 1. Give the Player control of how they want to shoot their arrows akin to how a Wizard shoots their spells, but with an Archer-twist to it. My wish is that Archers are kind of handled like Wizards, but perhaps in a more skill-shot kind of way, or give them a tactical "overwatch" type of utility purpose. In the IE games it feels as if Archers are shooting powerful spells every turn. Furthermore, in DA:O Leliana was weak (in my opinion, I might've built all my Archers in a bad way though), and the point I want to make is that simply making Archers "weaker" and deal less damage overall might work but it could also fail miserably. To give some sort of "realism" or "authenticity", an Archer was a powerful asset on the battlefield and a skilled archer should be (imo) a threat to consider. I think that Friendly Fire gives a load of tactical challenges for the Player that gives more depth to the combat system. I do love the raw power of an Archer in the IE games. It's satisfying, but at the same time they pack so much advantage with very little disadvantage to them. Thus I'm thinking out of my own preference: Keep the power of them, but give them more "risk" to the Player. That's really it imo, the bows in the IE games are lovely, the only thing they are lacking is a sense of "risk". And no, again, I don't think dice-rolls is a good option for an auto-attack as I think it'd be too chaotic and way too risky (but I think a Player chosen Perk with a dice roll mechanic when you decide to take a chance and shoot through one of your allies is very viable). Additonally: 4. Others have said it, but limiting how many arrows you can carry in the "Top of the Pack" is a really nice idea too for balance sake. That sort of "resource management" is great, and it also makes you "count your bullets" in a sense. I think that arrows should be something you can collect from fallen enemies too (dice roll stuff, some arrows might break, some might be whole). As a footnote I want to specifically say that these FF thoughts aren't directed towards "Casual Play" but, as I usually direct the attention, towards a Hard/Hardcore Difficulty Play.

Might've already been said before but... just because you steal something do you have to get the whole Guard house sent after you? They really have nothing better to do? Jokes aside, I would like to dive deeper into the aspect of getting caught: - Parley. Come to a sort of compromise. - Got good reputation with the guards? "I'm the thief? He's the thief!" (of course, you should only be able to do so once or twice until the Guards start to suspect you are playing them for fools) - Reputation playing a part in how "whatever-form-of-guard" catches you. - Culture. In some cultures there won't be any guards (either because they aren't, frankly, nearby or because they are corrupt) and the person you're stealing from might turn around and start hitting you instead. Self-Defense. Doesn't mean that the entire village needs to go mad, but more of an "Eye for an Eye!" mentality and a feud to settle between 2 individuals (the Player/Thief and the Target/Victim). They could hit hard too if they have any weapons on them~ - Pickpocketing is an art of sleight of hand, you won't have time to pause the game and go through their inventories, panties and hearts. You should only be able to steal some coin and/or some hand-held weaponry (a sword hanging on a hilt, a gun, dagger etc. etc). Stealing a piece of Chest Armor isn't something you pickpocket, it's something you rob from their houses. Robbery and Pickpocketing is not the same. [Robbery] could be an interesting mechanic though I realize, practically go up to some dude, wave your sword, gun, wand, or whatever at the guy's face and threaten him "Take off your armor.. now!". [Robbery] = Threaten+Pickpocketing Build? /Brainstorm End

This just hit me, awkwardly enough: In DA:O, Skyrim etc. etc. people modify the character models to get more "Character Modifications" and "Edits" and similar. In the IE games you don't worry too much about the paperdoll per say, but the artistic character portraits. Isn't "Portrait" customization (in essence) the same thing but a different format?

Depends on who is reading it. I like to dig deep and analyze various perspectives because I think it's fun to do so

I suspect he's onto the mechanical bits, "High Int, Low Wis". Though, doing some research, there is no "Intelligence" stat (Cunning I suppose, but in DA:O and DA2 Cunning ~ Charm/Accuracy/Intelligence Hybrid stat. A Rogue stat). http://social.bioware.com/forum/Dragon-Age-Origins/Dragon-Age-Origins-Characters-Classes-and-Builds-Spoilers-Allowed/Morrigan-Starting-Stats-837130-1.html Taking a gander at the Attributes in DA:O I come to the realization that they are strange from a roleplaying perspective. D&D got it right, the attributes reflects the character. But in Dragon Age they reflect more or less a mechanical "power". * Magic = Spellpower, in Baldur's Gate it's more spells per level (in a redundant sense, "Spellpower") and some other bits (Lore and something else) ** Cunning = Admittedly this is the best candidate for an "Intelligence" attribute, I do not think it is a "traditional" Intelligence attribute as seen in many other RPG's (Intelligence in many RPG's is usually tied with in Magic some way). Furthermore, Morrigan got 12 Cunning and she seems to be a Cunning personality (Specially how she tells you how she sneaked into villages as a child and a bit when you're talking to her about her shapeshifting abilities and the history she's had with it). Curiosity: What kind of attributes do you expect to see some from Dragon Age: Inquisition? Like I said above, DA:O (and DA2) have a kind of vague attribute reflection to the characters. They are kind of user-friendly, to say the least. Diablo-esque in a way. For instance, the stats of the IE games feel like they are a "part" of the character, but in DA:O they feel as if they are more or less "Proficiency" points being spent with leisure. I expect DA:I to have a similar thread like it's predecessors, but I kinda secretly wish it takes some "innovative" steps towards being less about "point distribution" and more towards "character development = stronger character" as you progress the game (achieving milestones) and or by doing quests.

Not really? I want to write up a short story of my reasoning but I fear too much come to mind that indicates that Morrigan is very intelligent as seen in the lore but I am too lazy to write it out But some things, in a non-chronological order: - As a child she snuck into villages without being seen - Is a Mage (implying she controls magical arts, which usually indicates a sort of "higher enlightenment" in fantasy stories) - A known shapeshifter - Tricked many men - Has the Book of the... the... sod it I don't remember the name but Flemeths dark magic book (regardless, she knows how to read and write) - Manipulates the Player to take out Flemeth in DA:O - Has a greater agenda that seems to be shrouded in lots of mystery - Upbringing by an ancient being (Flemeth) who knows many things and probably colored her way of thinking and provided her with lots of knowledge Just some of what I can think of. She has had many tools at her disposal in terms of learning and to become an intelligent person in contrast to other characters in the Dragon Age universe and timeline. Comparatively to other characters in the Dragon Age universe I'd say she seems pretty intelligent. EDIT: My friend got a pretty neat little quote: "You're as old as your experience" and looking at Morrigan's experience within the universe of Dragon Age/Ferelden and within the Fade. So, my reasoning "more experience = more age = more knowledge = more intellect". And Volourn also said, tearing open the Veil (if she's the one to do it) seems to require quite a lot of effort seeing as she didn't appear in DA2. Which is also something to consider, Morrigan didn't make an appearance in DA2 which would allow her to grow further as a power being.

Frankly, after the DA2 trainwreck I'll happily take a tired and true "save the world" story. Although doing something akin to MotB would be fantastic. Seeing the interview gives me reason to think that you can possibly choose to destroy the world as well. Specially the part where they went on and talked about losing content. "Save the Keep" or "Save the Village" dilemma. If you save the village, well your keep got attacked. If you save the keep, the people got hurt instead. They even brought up an example where you can, again, choose to engage in a random battle occurring whilst you are exploring the world. The way he said it in the interview as well almost felt as if that was a choice too. Maybe you are running on the clock, and choosing to engage in the random battle might itself make you "lose" the content you were heading for (I.E. You are running to join an expedition, but because you engage in the battle that you came across, you'll miss the expedition. Or you ignore the battle and run straight for the expedition). So if Bioware is going with lots of these potential instances where you get to choose A or B, who is to say that "Destroy the World" is not an option... depending on how you roleplay your character or how you play the game or how you decide and choose progression? And on that matter... isn't Morrigan a very intelligent woman and very powerful Mage that considers all options? If she is the one who tore the Veil open to unleash horrors on the world and for whatever reason she did that ambitious task, would she simply fall by the blade in the end or... would she potentially use her charm to either remove or crown her most potential threat of closing the Veil? Namely you, the Player. Or you as the Player might be on roleplaying a powermad tyrant who wants to control the world, so you destroy Morrigan and crown yourself "leader" and win the game by becoming a Dark Overlord or whatnot. *shrug* we'll see. I don't mind the "Save the World"-idea (I like to roleplay the noble good guy & naive hero most of the time in RPG's ), it feels like every game does that in it's own way, but it is the journey there that makes it most interesting (Mass Effect 3 is a 94.87% great game in my opinion but yeah, the ending feels bland. Something I believe might or might not be extended into a way more colorful deal in future Mass Effect titles). Slightly off-topic, rhetoric question: Did Bioware ever say that Mass Effect 3 ending (specifically) would answer all questions or was that simply a projection to the audience of what is to come in future installments over the course of, possibly, several installments?

Not yet, but I like how you're thinking How does one project "eternity"? I bring up the Akilles example again, talking about the idea of how to become "immortal" (like Akilles) is one way to project an idea of how to become eternal... but it's still not quite "projecting" eternity physically, it's just a "how to" idea... but to project "Eternity" or "Immortality" in it's pure essence of meaning, physically? I'm having trouble theorizing how one would be able to do such a thing in a fantastical and imaginative sense. But... maybe... if a God could grant someone else immortality or Godhood somehow... that would be kind of like "projecting" Eternity onto someone else? That's in a "in-game" sense. For an out-of-game sense. This forum. We are projecting our ideas for what we'd like to see and what we envision PE, as a game, both could become and what we want it to become. "Project Eternity" could be seen as "Talk about this game we want to name Eternity. What do you envision it could be? What do you want it to be? What kinds of ideas do you have to bring to the table?" etc. etc. If "Project" is a verb, then Eternity is (I believe) no doubt the title of the game. A.k.a. in short "Envision Eternity" and the longer version "Envision what the game 'Eternity' could be like". But I stand my ground, PE is a great "Acronym" or "Signature Initials". Simply having it as E sounds almost too short. Though, they could always go with "EY" (Ey, sup yo got flo' bro?) or "ET" (but I guess that one is kind of copyrighted)

Wow... think about custom portraits; that would be a chore A chore that I would personally very much adore, without a single drop of bore, and play with Portraits in Photoshop a little bit more ;D

This made it for me!! Very excited now the tactical perspective of Dragon Age: Origins is really what made me enjoy it the most and one of the reasons I played it several times. When I began playing Dragon Age 2 and I couldn't zoom out as far as DA:O it felt as if I was being "suffocated" (figure of speech) from the freedom* I felt I had in DA:O. Great stuff thank you for this Maria Caliban. I really like the camera work they've done for casting spells in 3rd Person as well, the camera kind of "zooms" out a little bit as seen here, when targeting the meteor spell. Suddenly DA:I became "I'm skeptical" to a "must buy" for me. Woop woop! Hyped :D Not as much as for Project Eternity of course but Bioware won my heart (again) <3 everything I've seen on DA:I seems to be improvements and it looks like they've taken a lot of feedback to heart. * Keyword

3:24... 3:24!!!!!! :D :D :D :D <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Yes!!! EDIT: Btw, it's about Bioware including the Tactical map *nod nod* great stuff

@Gromnir: Oh? Since I got this reply I was kind of curious and googled around but could never really find anything "substantial" to explain this. Please elaborate. Is it possible to mod & change the different states of the Portraits in PS:T? Additionally @everyone: I also wish to bring up "Emotional Expressions" into the fray. Will the Character Portraits of PE have "Emotional Expressions"? And if not, could it be possible to insert that in the same manner as what I posted previously? Psuedo-code! IF [Choice] = Intimidate DO [Portrait#1JAH] This could also be "modded" by opening the original JAH (Jaheira) portrait, modifiy it in photoshop and replace it as seen below: IF [Choice] = Intimidate DO [Portrait#1JAHANGRYFACE] ^This, I admittedly believe, would be a little bit more "complex" than simply tying up the Health bar with the Portraits. In theory this Dialogue+Portrait Expression might be simple, but in practice I believe it would require Obsidian to include "Portrait Folders" and tie them correctly in Dialogue (or else there would be a lot of confusion): 1. Main Folder [Jaheira] - ProfilePicture.jpg 2. Sub-Folder One [Health] -- 1.00% Health -- 0.75% Health -- 0.50% Health -- 0.25% Health 3. Sub-Folder Two [Expressions] -- Angry.jpg -- Happy.jpg -- Surprised.jpg -- Confused.jpg -- Charming.jpg -- Laughing.jpg -- etc. etc. In some ways it'd be a [Portrait Set] akin to how the [sound Sets] were handled. If you make a Sound Set for BG or IWD, you don't need to make all the 20-30 Sound Set files, you can make only 1 .wav if you want to and go with that. So, the suggestion is in essence, "It would be cool if there are 20-30 portrait 'placeholders' for various Health & Expressions purposes, but Obsidian only needs to make 1 Portrait in the vanilla experience". The simplest way for Players or Modders to play around with it would be to be able to directly influence in a Toolset/Game Editor, and tie specific "Portraits" and or "Pictures" to Dialogue choices and replies.

I've looked at "Project Eternity" with several perspectives: Out-of-Game perspective: - Project Eternity the Kickstarter Project/Campaign - Project Eternity, the Out of Game Quest (Obsidian Company Quest), Man wanting to achieve everlasting life. Fame, glory, legend. Project Eternity (the Game) might be a mark in video game history, a cult classic. Who over at Obsidian doesn't want to leave a nice footprint in the Earth? - Project Eternity, the tribute to the Infinity Engine Quest Related, in-game: - Project Eternity, a God Story/Quest, God's who work towards a greater goal, "Fate" or something other superstitious to achieve a platonic "Eternity". Or an Evil God that knows that everything that has a Beginning also has an End and it's own End is coming and thus creates "Project Eternity". - Project Eternity, the In-Game Quest/Story, man wanting to achieve everlasting life. Akilles chose (according to the mythology) to stay in Troy, even though he knew it would be death of him. But hey, everyone knows who Akilles is right? - Animat Factories, devices to prolong the life of a Soul (in a sense), someone had to start building the machines (the ancient civilization of the World?). What would they call their project, and for what reason would they build these machines? Eternity? With all the above said by me, I agree with what many others say in this thread. Project Eternity is thus far a "Placeholder". But I still think that "PE" has a really nice ring to it, in the same vein as the classical shorts BG, IWD, PST. Thus, I really think that Obsidian "should" work with "PE" as a title, something that starts with a "P" for a first word and "E" for a second word. Title-Help (Obsidian might have their own tools/ideas for how to get titles and stuff but I thought of just to share this for inspiration/influence or whatever~ also because I think it's a lil bit fun ): Something I myself think is pretty fun to do when I try to write titles, character names and events for my own story is to go on pages like this and see if there are "synonyms" that pretty much say the same thing but with a cooler sounding word that rolls on the tongue. Thesaurus and Merriam-Webster: 1. http://thesaurus.com/browse/project 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/project[noun] 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/project[verb] 4. http://thesaurus.com/browse/eternity 5. http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/eternity Acronym sites are fun too http://acronymcreator.net/ace.py roPEY - Project EternitY Who goes by Rope Kid on Something Awful? Finally, anagrams: http://www.anagrammer.com/anagrammer/ Did you know that "Eternity" is an anagram of "Tiny Tree" for instance!?!? Like I said, brilliant stuff ;D