Osvir

Just popping in and doing my "raise-awareness-duty": BioWare, if you're reading this thread from time to time just checking up on this: - Insert Top-Down Camera (with screen panning). Why? Because it's smoothly smexy. Come on. I know you want it (well I do and I believe many others want it too). Why? Because having a Top-Down Camera (with screen panning) makes it feel like I am controlling a Special Medieval Ops Unit of Great Warriors and Wizards to deal with my enemies during my adventures in your world. 3rd Person Locked Camera = Feels like I am controlling a single Special Ops Character with some side-kick heroes that are insignificant in combat (Mass Effect-mentality). Top-Down Camera (w/ Screen Panning) also makes the game get this RTS (Real-Time Strategy) perspective to it. Whilst 3rd Person Locked Camera gives more of a RTA (Real-Time Action) perspective to it. See the difference? If not, one says Strategy, the other says Action. Strategy is what made me love Dragon Age: Origins and finish it and even buy it several times (Once on PC and once on PS3). I've also started new games and played Dragon Age: Origins several times and made several different characters. Dragon Age 2? Bah! I've started ONE serious run but I stopped playing just as I finished Act 1 (to be honest, I got bored, but I was very engaged up until Act 2 started). I'm hardly a big demographic, I'm a vocal minority I am sure. But I still believe that you would make more money if you allow the Player to zoom out more than you can in Dragon Age 2. /"Raise-Awareness-Duty" End P.S. I'll be back to fight the good fight later in this thread or next section. I'll keep advocating for this because I see no "cons" with having this Option for the Player to choose their preferred perspective in the game.

It's not that crouching is bad per say, but Obsidian has stated (I'm too lazy to find it) that crouching is not feasible. I would personally love to get crouching, but I'm just following the official word (improper sourcing for the laziness! ) It's the Tim Cain QA video I believe, update... #16 or something like that.. early early stuff. EDIT: As for your climb idea, sounds great! Some Tree props could possibly have some sort of utility like that. No "climb animation" but more like "You will now climb this tree" *pop* "You have climbed this tree"~ imaginative climbing. Perhaps doesn't even need an archer artwork if climbing a tree either. Oooh I like this... The tree prop could get the "selection circle" and visually it could be a tree shooting arrows. If an enemy would hit the Archer/Ranger/Bow-User in the tree (practically & visually an enemy shoots the Tree) you could "fall down" (visually spawn at the bottom of tree with knockback-effect) from the tree (high-risk/high-chance of doing so) and take extra damage. [Clean up list]: - *pop* Climb tree: "Thou hast become a tree" = The character model disappears - Tree gets selection circle and gets "locked" range modifiers (A tree can not move)* - Enemy shoots at tree - Character "falls" out of tree = Character model spawns beside tree and falls to the ground a la "Knockdown" - Fin It also gets you on that "1 more door" boat. 1 House, 1 tree next to house, *pop* climb tree and *pop* jump into window. EDIT EDIT: More stealth stuff~ Faction Clothing (Fallout: New Vegas inspired). Take down a Guard, take his clothes and/or armor/banner stuff and get through the gate and similar shtuff. EDIT EDIT EDIT: Added [Clean-up list] * Can a tree move if a Druid makes it so?? :D

I am not asking for this or requesting it but it would be freaking awesome: I would love it if, not this detailed as above, if Obsidian could at least allow for 3-4 "states" of portraits depending on how much Health you have. In essence: If they write the code for "4 portrait states", modding it would be so much easier. But in the vanilla experience it would suffice still if it is just 1 Picture in all 4 states, less resources to be spent on the artistic work by Obsidian (unless they themselves think it's an interesting idea and want to do some artistic wolfenstein-esque health-damage work). 1. 100% Health 2. Same thing, 80% Health 3. Same thing, 50% Health 4. Same thing, 20% Health What it allows for is me, as the Player, to customize 2, 3, 4~ 1. ^Picture above (Full Health) 2. I go into Photoshop and add some amateur detail signifying that the character has taken damage. 3. See 2. 4. See 2. But as I first said, it's not anything I'm requesting, but simply throwing it out there because I personally think it would be awesome, effective and semi-"innovative". Obsidian wouldn't need to make the "damaged states" portraits themselves, but simply having the "4 states" in the code would open so many doors for Portrait enthusiasts and "modders" and "amateur" artists to fill in the gaps. EDIT: Switched the IWD portrait to something smaller. EDIT EDIT: In practice~ Concept, what Obsidian only needs to do (but with proper coding ofc): 1. IF 1.00% Health = Show [Portrait#1JAH] 2. IF 0.75% Health = Show [Portrait#1JAH] 3. IF 0.50% Health = Show [Portrait#1JAH] 4. IF 0.25% Health = Show [Portrait#1JAH] Because with this, I could easily just open [Portrait#1JAH] in Photoshop or whatever, modify it a little bit and rename it to [Portrait#1JAHMOD2] (or whatever I wish to name it) and then add it into the states as such: Concept, what I could then do with it: 1. IF 1.00% Health = Show [Portrait#1JAH] 2. IF 0.75% Health = Show [Portrait#1JAHMOD2] 3. IF 0.50% Health = Show [Portrait#1JAHMOD3] 4. IF 0.25% Health = Show [Portrait#1JAHMOD4] I'm not too savvy with programming, but it looks logically like something that could be fairly simple to implement.

No crouching. As for cover and such. I believe PE will have props (bushes and such), perhaps making bushes and other "cover" be "transparent" or passable whilst in Prone-Mode and give them parameters and triggers/scripts/code that they "aid" stealth (whilst in Prone-Mode). IF [Character Prone] = [bush#1] can be moved through & [stealth] (or something) It's not entirely "low profile" either. But it's also ideas for allowing the Player to enter 1 room from several different "entrances". The existence of having a [Prone] stance allows more "doors" (figure of speech) to be "opened" and "entered" through. Potential entrances to 1 room. Standing+1 Room/House: - 1 Room/House - 1 Door entrance (1 Door) - Window Entrance? (1 Door) - Climb roof+Chimney Entrance? (1 Door) - Backdoor? (1 door) - Total of 4 "doors" +Prone - Cellar entrance? (1 door) - Enter house from a nearby Cave->Tunnel (1 door) - River+Watermill Entrance (swimming, 1 door) - Total of 7 "Doors" suddenly Prone = Allows more entrances.

EDIT: Just throwing out some ideas, thoughts and stuff I Think should be considered /EDIT Don't forget Prone Stance and the possibilities it gives (If it is in the game, it was advertised by Tim Cain pretty early in the Kickstarter Campaign) 1. Crawl under a house to access it from below (if a house is slightly elevated and/or has a hatch door under the house somehow) 2. Crawl into a crack in a wall to get into the fort grounds (Friendly Arms Inn for instance, could it be possible to crawl into the area and pass by the guards at the gate?) 3. Crawl into a Cave tunnel. 4. Prone = Swim = Same-same animation possibilities (but would require some extra Resources to be spent on water coding and scripting and "swim paths"/water pathfinding etc. etc.) 5. River/Lake swimming to get past encounters. 6. General Secret finding (Dead-ends but might found some lost dead skeleton adventurer holding some semi-useful loot). Also secret paths. 7. Crawl in bush, hide from patrols. 8a. Prone specific take-downs? 8b. Must be in Prone Stance: - No animation abilities, but hiding behind an enemy/character/unit in Prone Stance and using a "Prone Take Down" could be an equivalent of a "Stealth Take Down" in many "Stealth Games" (Deus Ex HR, Dishonored etc. etc.). - No animation, as said above, but could give status effects such as "Sleep", "Stun" or whatnot. Can you move objects and possibly bodies in PE? (Divine Divinity-esque, you can move objects by clicking and dragging them). Does patrols, guards, factions notice bodies laying around? Can you pick up bodies? Does patrols, guards, factions notice dropped weapons and items? (Often times they do not, they get alarmed and hostile if they see a body, but they don't give a damn if you move the body but the weapon the knocked out guy was holding is in plain open field). ^I have more to say, but this will do for now I suppose. All things, in my opinion, to consider for a stealthy approach and how AI reacts to a stealthy-esque-ish approach.

Josh has said there's going to be visual aids for spell placements (so a circle showing the range of your fireball - a bit like TOEE I think). Personally, I prefer it without - makes spell-casting more challenging - but I can see the frustration of letting rip with a fireball and missing the enemy entirely. That's something a little bit save+loading could fix though (for research, "How big AoE does the Fireball exactly have??". I remember doing this in the Shattered Hand for this specific reason). I learned exactly how far the Fireball was going to go, so I could even hit enemies that were fighting close-range with my Fighter and Paladin without hitting my units. I quickly learned that most (if not all) big AoE spells had pretty much the same range as well. Getting visual aid sounds great, but I do like challenge and your post sprung an idea to mind... how about some "risk factor" of the Fireball (concept) being bigger or smaller than the visual aid? Maybe the fire jets out an extra layer to one side of the "visual aid circle"/GUI. Makes it more risky, which isn't necessarily "challenging" per say but isn't challenge/risk the same thing in some of these occasions? In the IE games = "I could hit that big ball of enemies if I throw a Fireball here but... I could also hit some of my own units" What I'm suggesting = "I'll hit everything in this circle of this Fireball but... there is a risk that it extends and hits some of my units, alternatively there's a chance that it extends and hits more enemy units. Hm decisions decisions.." Don't know how "easily" implementable that is, but felt like putting it on the table: TL;DR: Suggestion: - Abilities that may or may not become more powerful when cast~ A risk factor as well as a "Buffed Spellpower!" factor. Spells that may be a curse to the battle, or a gift. Not 50/50 chance, something marginal... like... 10% chance of either being an advantage or a disadvantage. Perhaps a Player picked Perk? "Wild Soul - This perk allows the Wizard to cast some spells with a chance to erupt greater power!! Disclaimer: However, the nature of gaining a Wild Soul also gives an element of 'Chaos'. The spells cast can tend to go off uncontrollably in a way not favored by the rest of the group" (insert picture of Powermad PipBoy Wizard with 5 scorch black units with fumes standing around (Party of 6)) or something.

Some wishes of what I'd like to see ranged weaponry do (Long-range weaponry): - 1. Friendly Fire (On Harder Difficulties) & Misfire As noted ^only on harder difficulties but I want to take Spell's into consideration here. 5 Magic Missiles gets fired off, who is to say that one or two aren't misfired at an ally close to the target or backfires back to the Wizard? As for Friendly Fire, also on harder difficulties, but then positioning becomes way more important and clutch moments where your Archer just narrowly fires between two of your "tanks" and hits the target just when you need it becomes more frequent and possible. - 2. Environmental Penalty Is it raining? Snowing? A big forest? An overly humid swamp? What can affect the efficiency of the Archer's mind and eyes? A close-ranged warrior can swing his sword around and clash in close quarters even though they might get slightly "worn down", but an archer and/or long-ranged fighter should get more penalized. Basically, anything that affects a close-ranged quarters (in combat) for anything that has anything to do with Sight/Reaction/Weight etc. etc. should double for Archers/Bow-users (Concept: Blindness makes your Fighters see worse = Blindness makes Archers/Bow-users see x2 worse than Fighters). A simple trigger/script such as "Is the Unit holding a Bow? If yes, x2 Sword sight penalty" should suffice (but with prettier words and less concept-like ofc). - 3. Aimed Shots/GUI Shots The Player could get some sort of GUI for the Archer, get a popular "Throw grenade" (seen in many FPS games but also some in League of Legends) transparent blue line from the Archer to the enemy and be able to manipulate it somewhat and the Archer will always fire with that angle in mind. Making the angle go over your allies so that 1. (Friendly Fire) does not occur could penalize the attack speed, whilst having a straight line could fire arrows faster but at the risk of damaging your allies (Friendly Fire). - 4. Archer Stance/"No Auto-Aim"/Turn Animation Can't shoot and walk at the same time e.g: 1. Move/Position your unit 2. Short down-time 3. Shoot 4. Short down-time 5. Shoot 6. Now, I want to move the unit so I click somewhere and [short down-time] occurs. 7. Unit moves. 8. Short down-time. 9. Shoot. etc. etc. In BG and IWD we have an "auto-aim" animation. Even if I have my back towards the opponent, the unit/character instantly turns around and shoots an arrow. The title of this section was partially "Turn Animation". Have the unit turn towards the target before shooting instead of doing some sort of Legolas "hax" turn and shoot instantly, though that could be something that scales with Leveling up of course (a.k.a. "Turn faster" or "Shoot faster after turning").

So it doesn't bother you that the overuse of astericks could be taken out of the game? Okay. Why not just say that? It's like some big thing that people don't want to admit that it was unecessary, as per the screen shot I posted. Oh no, we can't agree with Hiro even though the screen shot would be just as good without the astericks around the words. It's better to disagree with Hiro. Seriously. The asterisks didn't bother me was what I was saying. I also don't think it is, was or even would be unnecessary. This is my opinion, your opinion is further down in this post. I think the general dialogue doesn't feel the same in the examples where you've removed the asterisks around the words, Oswald doesn't convey the spoken lines in the same way when they are there. However, that doesn't mean that asterisks is the only method to convey spoken lines. Italics does the same trick. ^I put some emphasis on some words I thought were important. Btw, ^your opinion.

Agreed. Although, to be fair, sizes above 24-or-so might start causing problems with screen real estate, between dialogue boxes filling the entire screen and/or the player being inable to read more than about a short sentence at any given time without having to scroll. Who knows, though... Maybe there's some far-reaching voice that comes from inside the heads of those hearing it, for miles and miles, and to convey the sheer magnitude of its source, Obsidian uses Size 48 font for a brief moment, as it beckons thousands of people at once to succumb to some command or something. *shrug* Like you said... if they find a valid use for it, I say go for it. True. But who is to say that Obsidian can't *gasp* animate some of the text size for a brief moment? (I know that some jRPG's do this fairly well where the text can get bigger than the screen box a la "SAY WHAAAT!?" and then shrink back to normal size for emphasis of, in this case, the excessively surprised emotion) And there is also the example which you bring up Lephys. I get an image of some "Leader" or some "Tyrant" on top of a stage and he looks down on his underlings and uses some sort of Magical "Command Word" and just roars: "OBEY!" And everyone around just falls to their knees, succumbing to the sheer amount of raw power the words hold.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/884980 How about no PS4 Controller and just plug in your regular USB/Bluetooth KB & Mouse into the PS4?

It comes down to the heart of the matter and my original post on this. Do you like the overuse of asterisks? I don't. Here's part of my original quote. And then we have three pages of people disagreeing with me and yourself chiming in after I posted a screen shot to highlight my point. And yet there are posters who are still disagreeing with me. I would have used a better screen shot to show how bad the conversations can get with astericks everywhere but I was at work when I posted the one I did. There is a definite overuse of the astericks in IWD 2. It never bothered me, to be honest. I don't mind if Obsidian would write the story however they wish and use whatever tools to, quote dukeofwhales, "convey additional information about how the lines are spoken". Bold, Underline, Italic, *Asterisk*, Strike Through, CAPITAL ONLY LETTERS, or whatever really. Size 8 Size 10 Size 12 Size 14 Size 18 Size 24 Size 36 Size 48 Several different fonts, colors, wherever and IF Obsidian feels it is applicable to a given in-game situation/environment/character. It all depends on how Obsidian wants to write for PE.

I'm not trying to be king of the hill or anthing. I showed an example of IWD 2 with a screen shot where it's totally unnecessary. You're now saying the screen shot in question did have to have the *I* and *you* with asterisks around them? Did I ever state anything on this matter previously?

Only if you can show me a screenshot of a game in which two people engaged in a dispute got a room and it was necessary. I suddenly find myself worrying about the necessity of anything Obsidian is doing in this game that they cannot show screenshot evidence of from existing games. Explanations have apparently become useless, and innovation no longer exists. O_O For whatever it's worth, I think you are proving a pretty strong point in your posts Lephys. I don't know if Hiro is reading the same thing as me or if he simply wants to be "King of the Hill" of your... forum bout? Regardless, I personally like the italic method, it's on point. I wouldn't even mind bold and underline if applicable in the writing, and, depending on the situation in-game (if what happens on the game screen reflects well with the dialogue screen then *shrug* why not?).

(Speaking only about single player) I believe that is the only interesting example there is. Apart from that construed situation I don't think it likely that charm-, persuasion- or intimidation-experts would be reluctant to use their skills to help their party of adventurers. But then it simply becomes a routine non-decision to always use charming Boo in charming situations and you would ask yourself why the silly program can't simply and automatically use the person with the best skill? That entirely depends on your main characters relationship with the party of companions. It also depends on the party's agenda, I remember reading or hearing about the companions of PE having their own "goals" and "agendas". That implies many things, even things such as that they only want to stay with you for a couple of rounds until they achieve their own goals. Then they might hang around if they find you intriguing and/or have built a bond with your character. Maybe something you want to do goes against their wishes entirely.

I thought I replied to this hm... Do you know if you will be able to up your pledge to a Beta Access/Early Access Tier when the fulfillment site or would Obsidian simply release it an Early Access on Steam? PE's lowest Beta price was $110 (Planetary Annihilation was at $90 and released it as such on Steam as well, met with lots of complaints but was still on the top selling list on Steam). I'd probably up my pledge to $110 if I could join on the Beta for the sole purpose of bug testing.

I didn't think you were talking about PE, but to mix that system into the franchise later doesn't seem like a good idea either (unless, like all the previous commentaries about it, MP was tacked on and crappy as it was in BG2). Mass Effect, Dragon Age, so on. Maybe you didn't pay attention to all the initial discussion started in 2012, but trying to make "decent" MP content is another issue besides the technical complexities of MP; first we have the technical side of making different platforms work together in MP and all the related networking bugs, and then if going for "decent" MP, the content somehow has to reflect the MP context, so then what? Something has to give for a development firm without multi-million publisher backing. And you're probably smart enough to guess the price. Although the answer was actually given back in 2012. Adding later would introduce quality inconsistency into the PE franchise when we're hoping for a unified trilogy or whatever. Quality intellectual SP games are extremely rare right now, and the proposed caliber of combined IE games is completely nonexistent, so most of us who don't want anything to do with MP are purist because we've already seen how MP strips and dumbs down SP content for AAA titles with multi-million backing. Reusing SP infrastructure isn't going to make much of a difference because you still have to develop new content and MP still has its own infrastructure complexities, but if you want "decent" MP, I'll bet the SP infrastructure will need to be reworked around it as well. But again, I wouldn't mind if it was completely crappy tacked-on MP where only the lead character can affect dialogue choices and such, and SP content development was never affected. As I and others have said many times whenever the MP/co-op/console thing comes up, just have another Kickstarter for those items and make a different game. It can be set in the same universe, but a different kind of game altogether (because you can't have the same PE-type game with PS:T-like content in a console or proper MP environment--it just ain't happening). For once, leave the games-for-dumb-masses to Bioware and the like and hopefully Obsidian will give us a solid, proper old-school-like SP game. That's what they promised, anyway. As I have said before as well, I think it would be fun to have MP without touching the Singleplayer core experience. I've said it before, how the IE games handled it in the very first place. I personally enjoyed that sort of MP. From BG/IWD perspective (you already know but I am "painting" a picture for everyone): Singleplayer, 1 Player with 5 NPC's. Multiplayer, 2-6 Players who control all NPC's or their premade ones. You can even, if you want a "canon" experience, create a "filler" MP character and then remove that one and play Imoen, Khalid, Kivan, Montaron etc. etc. whoever you wish to play. It's still the core experience. That's what I'd like to see in PE. It doesn't interfere with the core Singleplayer experience. It simply allows your friends to tag along. As for the Multi-Party Dialogue+Multiplayer suggestion/question. Let's look at a concept from a Singleplayer perspective with a big "IF": - 1 Player, 5 NPC companions. - A conversation that requires an intimidating character, but my character isn't. - Luckily, Forton does have "Intimidating" traits in his pre-built character so asking him to help out doesn't seem too far fetched. Now, Multiplayer: - 2 Players, 4 NPC companions. - A conversation that requires an intimidating character, but my character isn't. - Luckily, my friend has built a character for this purpose with "Intimidating" traits in his built character, so asking his character for help (Without any "Do you want to help?" prompts) doesn't seem too far fetched. That is what I was trying to get at. But before you get on a high horse and look down on the MP or even me for suggesting it, I do want to emphasize that of course I prioritize an SP experience first and foremost. I don't think the Multi-Party idea is out of the picture of the SP experience though, because in so many ways it makes sense. If you've got a charmer in your group when you're out, maybe he or she can get you in on a club that you wouldn't be able to "charm" your way into. Asking your companions in social situations where you lack the social skill isn't a bad thing, the question is: Are they willing to come through with that help? Would your friend charm the bouncer and leave you hanging? Maybe your friend would be able to get himself in, but the bouncer isn't willing to the total of 6 of you get inside (which unlocks "Split Party mechanics" thoughts but I won't get into that too much here~ basically being able to control a character away from the party). I bring up the same example again: Maybe Edair has great "Intimidating" or "Threatening" traits, but would he be willing (as a character) to threaten the Innkeeper? So asking Edair in that situation might be a bad thing for your relationship with him. But! If you've swayed him down a dark path previously, he might instead be possibly happy to do it. Buuut that's another previous suggestion (being able to "turn" companions~ make a good hearted companion into a stone cold killer). But alas, I don't know what kind of depth the game will have in terms of Companion interaction/meddling/mechanics/writing. I do think it would be cool

This wouldn't work, besides which adding MP is a waste of time and resources, mechanically... Simply, there's no contextual hook between premade multiplayer characters who have no backstory and reactive dialogue options in a PS:T-like game, and then there's no reason at all to allow other players to control existing companions in the dialogue sense because the entire point is that the companions have significant backstory and relevant hooks to other NPC interactions outside a player's control. This is a single-player game. And don't bother suggesting that a multi-player controlled vanilla party should just have reactive dialogue options in the "hive mind" sense all derived from the head party member's control, because we get back to the 2012 developer comments that MP is a bad idea for heavy SP content unless you want crappy MP implementation (and I'd be fine with that--make it real crappy and avoid sacrificing anything in SP). BG2 and PS:T handled "multi-party" conversation a little bit differently, but it's highly contextual to pre-written companion backstory and the given NPC/quest situation. For example, in BG2 you could speak to that one vendor NPC using Jaheira or your PC and the reaction would be different, but if Jaheira did it, it's not like the player had any control over dialogue choices. Or in PS:T you could ask Dak'kon to interact with Fell as translator or you could just do it yourself, with varying degrees of success and control. I didn't say "Make PE Multiplayer". I was speculating that if Obsidian plans their code ahead, maybe they can do some work towards a Multiplayer experience in a sequel. Because I suspect that if Obsidian makes a PE2 they are going to re-use a lot of what they are doing for PE1.

Only the main character can speak.Your companions can speak if THEY want, but it won't be in the players control. It will be like PS:T or BG2 Hormalakh has a point though. And there's also a point hiding in what you are saying: How do the enemies react to you bossing your team mates to do your bidding? More importantly, how would your party members react to this command? Could there be a Morale penalty? Leadership penalty? Is there a "Leadership" Bar in P:E? Is there Morale? For example, Edair might be great at threatening ruffians, but would he threaten the Innkeeper Osmaer? Would he outright neglect you asking him, and even think you are doing the "wrong" thing to even ask him of that? Whisper to Cadegund to charm the guards and she might slap you in the face? I still think multi-party conversations has lots of potential. Thinking a little bit far ahead but, having a multi-party conversation system in PE could set a predecessor for a Multiplayer Multi-Party conversation in a potential PE2.

Yes most definitely, that's what I was thinking. I was just using the Innkeeper as a placeholder. Re-use Villager 1 and Villager 2 and so on. But it would be nice to see if some "unique" Quest givers have some "uniqueness" to them. Or just give Faction Insignia's (in a way placeholders), because the second modders get the hand on it, I am sure many of those insignia's might get replaced with a face instead (Much like Baldur's Gate Conversation mods tbh). EDIT: Just want to clarify to Hormalakh that I meant that the multi-party conversation idea is great.

Yes! And I love that whole concept through and through, it sounds great and looks like it could fit in very nicely. I don't have anything further to add on that, which is why I went straight into nitpicker mode~ personal preference-mode on aesthetics/presentation

Watch it where it isn't blocked Lephys it's not sloppily staggered, it's just... I don't know, it doesn't look like it entirely fits in, which is why I think for it to shine the most it would require some sort of art upgrade to accommodate Hormalakh's suggestion. Something that indicates left side is meant for left-side party and right side is meant for right-side party in the dialogue. My example is sloppily staggered though. There, that should do it more justice.

I think we need to split Summons into different Tiers, which is a little bit what I tried with "Low, Mid and High". Perhaps even adding an "Epic" Tier as a category in itself. Because I am in favor of the Perma-Death Summoning (Summoned Beings that Die), but I am also in favor of a limitless stock. Low Tier Summons - As seen in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale etc. etc. they never run out, they don't get weaker and they don't really get stronger (unless the Wizard himself is stronger. Maybe he calls out 3 Low-Tier Summons instead of 2 when he reaches a certain level or something). Being able to name them, so you summon "Humpti" and "Dumpti" over and over again for a duration of time (or until you unsummon/dispell them) or until they fatefully die in battle. Then you lose them and you get to summon 2 new ones that you can name "Bolli" and "Holli" or whatever you want. Mid Tier Summons - [Repeat above] High Tier Summons - [Repeat above] Epic Tier Summons - Quest Tier Summons. Something you have to find in the World, perhaps even do battle with and "catch" and "tame". There's only ONE of these in the world, not two, but a single one between all realms. Just like there is only ONE Main Character that you have created. So if this ONE single Summon dies when it is called, it doesn't simply "de-materialize" and disappear into some sort of void, but it gets cracked, slashed, death, it ceases to exist altogether. How would you be able to Summon something that is dead? Necromancy? What I am suggesting is that Obsidian create Quest Content for Epic Summons that are "Unique" Summons in the game that could very well work as a "7th Companion" when Summoned (but for obvious reasons never be as strong or have as many abilities and can't "level up" and can't partake in any banters or whatnot). This whole discussion brings me to some questions: What sort of "Life" rules apply to Summons? What kind of "Soul" do they have and are they Immortal beings that only do their Master's bidding? What is a Summon and where do they come from? What happens when a Summon breaks "free" or is "let go"? Can a Summon live a mortal life in the regular plane or does it dissipate? Is a Summon a Soul? Can you kill a Soul? Etc. etc.

I'm confused what are the pro's and cons of using heatmaps on games, and particularly on PE? Look at the video in the gameinformer link in the first post. It starts around the 2:00 mark and ends at the 2:30 mark. The developer speaks a little bit about how it helps. As for cons, I think it just costs a lot like Tale implies.

@Hormalakh: I think it looks great, but I personally don't like the "mid-screen" Dialogue Lines coming in by Sagani. By my preferences I kind of like having all the text on the left side, unless the conversation box took some pro-your-suggestion-art direction. It is a concept but it looks a little bit "off-put". But it is at the same time a nice addition to kind of separate the two, e.g. everyone talking on the left side has text on the left side, everyone talking on the right side has text on the right side. I just think that it could work just as well by having all text on the left side and simply doing a Color-Border (like you did around Forton) to point out who's talking (not to mention putting a "Forton:" or "Sagani:" in front of the text when he/she speaks). Your idea makes it super clear who's talking, but it "kind of" removes the standard "Novel" experience. -------------------------------You open the door----- -You are greeted by the Innkeeper-------------- -"Osmaer is my name!"-------------------------------- -----------------------You notice a silvertooth------- -------------------"Got some news?"------------------ -"Sure! Can't tell tho"--------------------------------- -------------------------------------"Please?"------------- Etc. etc. In comparison to: -You open the door----------------------------------- -You are greeted by the Innkeeper-------------- -"Osmaer is my name!"-------------------------------- -You notice a silvertooth----------------------------- -"Got some news?"------------------------------------ -"Sure! Can't tell tho"--------------------------------- -"Please?"------------------------------------------------- Neither of the two are pretty writing, they are simply there to convey an image of what I am talking about.

This was exactly my idea! Then you can also have several portraits on the right side too and you can then choose who says/acts the next dialogue option and for those selections that require a dice roll or a attribute check you can have tht particular character make that attribute.dice roll check. This takes me back to memory lane (Character Expressions) albeit dice rolls and attributes checks sounds like a great addition into the conversation. Imagine talking to 3 goons, two of them is dumb but the 3rd one is actually quite intellectual. For whatever reason, one of the dumb ones are the "Big Brother" leader, and you are trying to persuade them that you are part of their Bandit gang (so that you can sneak in for whatever reason). Let's just take the only significant choice: 3: - "I think you should let us pass" Bandit Brother Nr 1 (Leader): "Huh? Okay, well you seem alright..." [insert Attribute Check/Dice Roll] - In code, I don't want some sort of Final Fantasy X-2 "Mission Complete!" Wheel of Fortune to start spinning on the screen *shudders* And in this example the dice roll fails~ Bandit Brother Nr 3 (The smart one): "Now wait a minute bro. These guys smell funny, they not walk like us and not talk like us. Some fishy business...." And now you have to convince the smarter one and he becomes the "Highlight" in conversation on the other side.