[Do you get Attributes on Level Up?]

There are good and bad things about both methods, I find.

 

Static ability scores mean that your character can never (except perhaps with the aid of strong magic) become stronger, wiser, or whatever else than they were at the beginning. Obviously, people actually can change those things, so this isn't completely realistic.

 

Increasing ability scores mean that your character will get very quickly stronger, wiser, or whatever else than they were at the beginning, to the point that by a certain level they will be twice as strong or wise or what as they were to begin with. Obviously, doubling in ability -- especially more than once -- is rather unlikely, so this isn't completely realistic.

 

Overall, I prefer static ability scores, although if there were some golden middle wherein one could through great effort occasionally increase one's abillity scores, that might be best. They make somewhat more sense to me than the alternative, although neither is perfect, and I feel that they work out better mechanically. There isn't the race against obseletion that, as others have mentioned, often comes of increasing ability scores. It does place more stock in initial character creation, but that's fine with me. The skills of the character will continue to increase, and that's enough.

[Weapon Specialization issue]

Weapon grouops make a great deal of sense to me, particularly grouped by length/reach, for the broadest categories. I see no problem with that. Ideally, I think, there would be a certain percentage of the warrior's skill that comes from general combat knowledge and general training in a variety of weapons, and then something on top of that that comes from specialisation in various weapons on top of that general knowledge -- or branching out and becoming more proficient in all weapons, if they so chose. I dislike the "idiot savant" type of weapon specialisation. I don't find it realistic, and I think it's more limiting than anything else.

 

Since we are only seeing fairly low levels in this game, I think it's reasonable not to go much at all into specialisation. Style specialisation instead of single weapon specialisation might be interesting, but as it goes, I'm liking what I'm seeing of this so far.

 

More than you'd think (especially since I doubt you're talking about real pikes, which were fifteen feet long and pretty much only used in formation fighting). As any martial artist can tell you, movements between apparently dissimilar weapons bear striking resemblances when you actually practice them, and learning one improves your technique with all others. More crucially, different weapons have different applications, and as such they'd both be taught in one school of combat (this is true even for "specialized" schools that favored particular weapons, like TSKSR or German longsword). Professional soldiers, duelists, and fighting masters did not study single weapons within a discipline, but rather, an entire discipline.

Entirely the point I was going to make. Melee combat, in its most basic and fundamental principles, is actually quite similar all across the board. Clearly, using a bow or a gun is a very different thing than being in melee, but I see no problem with grouping weapons largely by striking range -- in fact, it makes rather more sense to me than many other ways they end up being grouped in games.

 

I find it much stranger if my fighter, being quite excellent with a longsword, picks up a bastard sword and can't figure out how to use it.

 

You keep (possibly inadvertently?) interchanging "mastered" with "specialized in." Just because someone is proficient (merely as opposed to unproficient) with several weapons does not mean they are masters of those weapons. It makes perfect sense that someone with weapons training would be trained with various weapons of a given theme. MAYBE not 6, but, still...

Six makes sense to me. I can think of at least six weapons off the top of my head I'd consider myself proficient with, although some only to the level of being able to pick them up and know what I'm meant to be doing with them (which I consider to be more or less the definition of proficient, here).

[Delayed to early 2015]

I'm not either surprised or disappointed that it was delayed. I would always rather see a more highly polished and better game than a more swiftly relased one. As far as I'm concerned, they can take as long as they want -- within limits, of course, but half a year is well within reasonable limits. So long as it doesn't get to the five-to-ten years point, all's good to me. I might like to be playing the game right now, but I'd ultimately rather be playing a better or more complete game at some date in the future rather than a slightly worse one sooner.

 

Technically, nothing has been delayed. Wasn't the release date "Winter 2014?" Winter doesn't start till December, and it ends in March, so an "early 2015" launch, could still be within the Winter '14 prediction.

True enough, technically speaking. I'm used to thinking of "winter" as being more of "end of October through the middle of April", but that's based on snowfall, not the calendar -- although, thinking of it that way, it's even more the case that early 2015 would still be the same winter.

[Really old player here.]

I myself may be one of the younger people here, I suppose, having played Baldur's Gate when I was ten. Like many here, I've been looking for something with the old Infinity Engine feeling ever since the last of those was made, and I'll certainly be very happy if we continue to see an upswing in more classical RPGs. I have enjoyed some newer RPGs, some even quite a lot, but just not as much. I certainly haven't wanted to replay any of the newer ones as much.

 

I know a good many gamers much older than me (my parents included) who definitely still game. I probably wouldn't think of someone as being an older gamer until they were in their seventies, since I know a decent number of gamers in their fifties or sixties, and it doesn't really seem that unusual to me.

 

I know I tend to fall on the younger end of the spectrum whenever I'm talking with a group of people about the games I grew up playing, probably because I started playing games so early, my game-playing having gone hand-in-hand with learning to read. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the backers are around my age or older (with the exception of my younger brother who, of course, I know to be younger) since those would likely be the main category of people who love Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment and such and now have the money to contribute.

 

My gaming tastes haven't changed very much so far, although I do enjoy strategy games more than I used to. They are some of my favourites now, and when I was much younger, I didn't like them much (largely because I was impatient and poor at them). It's hard to say how much I still like some of the earliest games I played, and played so much that I could probably still complete them in my sleep, but I at least don't dislike them and still have some fondness for them. Of course, that all could still change in the future. The main difference now is that I have much less free time than I used to, so I can't play as many games as I once did.

 

On our first computer, I played games in QBasic, instead of DOS.

I remember QBasic. Most of the early games I played were DOS, though, it was mainly just Nibbles and Gorillas in QBasic -- well, those, and my numerous attempts at programming text-based games, which never went so well.

[Adventurers Hall Questions + a little extra]

 

Is the hard limit of eight total adventurers per game a true limit on the number created, or can one somehow delete previously created adventurers in that game after they have died in order to hire more? I am guessing the former from the phrasing, but would appreciate clarification nonetheless.

 

The limit is on eight active adventurers in a game.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying!

 

And? Why does it matter to anyone else if someone wants to play that way? Is stopping "cheaters" in a single-player game really worth preventing Utukka, IndiraLightfoot, Remmirath, myself, and others from playing in ways we enjoy?

If I understand correctly what is meant by "active", it won't actually be a problem for the way that I play (although clearly, I cannot speak for the others mentioned). So long as I can have five adventurers beyond the main character active and in the party at the same time, and may create more upon their deaths to replace them, I'm good. I'd be happier without the hiring fee, but it bothers me but very slightly; I can always write it off as some other associated cost if I don't want the new adventurer to have been, in character, hired.

 

I do, however, agree with you in that I don't care at all how anybody else wants to play in a single player game, and am not sure why one would. I suppose that there are some people who compulsively exploit any and all potential loopholes they find but would much rather not even have been able to do so, but I would think and hope that they are rather distinctly in the minority. Most people will simply not use a feature if they prefer to challenge themselves more or if they don't like it, and won't exploit a known loophole unless they actively want to do so.

[Defence/Deflection rating for weapons]

It is certainly true that having a weapon to deflect hits with is more effective than being unarmed and attempting to deflect weapons, although the difference may not be noticable in some cases (unarmed or knife versus arrow doesn't matter, to use an extreme example).

 

I believe that the best way to model that would be to have some manner of skill -- be it the general weapon skill or a separate one -- give a bonus to deflection based on or modified by the type of weapon used and the type of weapon it is being used against. A knife, for example, is never going to be very effective at blocking a longsword or halberd, and a great deal of that is down to training and skill.

 

That would be rather complicated, however, so all in all I do think that leaving the weapon mostly out of defense is reasonable in a game. As a simplier solution, I believe that MERP/RM's solution of parrying with a portion of the offensive bonus while still being able to use whatever may be left of it to attack is the most reasonable I've yet come across, as it does leave it as a tactical choice while effectively also basing it on the skill of the warrior in question, as more skilled people can get away with parrying more while still attacking effectively.

[Adventurers Hall Questions + a little extra]

Is the hard limit of eight total adventurers per game a true limit on the number created, or can one somehow delete previously created adventurers in that game after they have died in order to hire more? I am guessing the former from the phrasing, but would appreciate clarification nonetheless.

 

I ask because one of my favourite things to do when replaying (or sometimes even playing for the first time) games in which this is possible is to run quests where all members who fall in battle must be replaced instead of resurrected. Coupled with a limit on reloarding -- or occasionally a complete ban on it -- I've often ended up with a great many more than eight adventurers total in most games in which I have done this, so a limit of eight means I'll probably not be able to play through the game in that matter and thus am hoping it would somehow be possible to create more than eight over the course of a game.

 

Of course, I understand that this is probably not a problem for most people, and I'm still happy to be able to create my own party at all. I am, however, curious -- given the cost to hire, why the number limit? It seems to me that the cost would be enough to dissuade using them as fodder in general, and surely enough to render it a choice that would have to be weighed heavily against other concerns.

[Feat suggestions]

Passive combat talents are what I would like to see most. Feats that focus in on a particular style of fighting, weapon of choice, or defense style of choice in particular.

 

I'd also like to see activated talents that one would definitely not want to do in all situations. Things such as whirlwind attacks (although possibly a little less martially iffy), charges, and the like. In fact, come to think of it, one thing I've always thought would be nice for a whirlwind style attack is to have in addition to the benefits also the penalty of a lowered defense or of enemies getting free hits in on you. Benefit/drawback heavy, special use type things are what I like in an activated talent.

[So DA:I will have stronghold and crafting too]

My personal order of BioWare games is as follows: BGII+ToB > BG >> DA:O > NWN > KotOR >> ME1 > ME2 > DAII. I've not played Jade Empire, but I'm quite certain I wouldn't be fond of it from what I know of it. I also haven't played ME3, although I'm guessing it would go in there between ME2 and DAII.

 

As with most people, it seems, adding in RPGs from other companies changes this a fair amount. Then it becomes BGII+ToB > IW > BG > IWII > PS:T* > Arcanum > ToEE >> DA:O > Morrowind > Lionheart > NWN > NWN2 > KotORII > KotOR > Skyrim > Oblivion >> ME1 > ME2 > DAII. I've not yet completed the Fallout games, though they've been on my "to play" list for quite some time, so I'm not sure where they'll fit in. Somewhere in the first or second tier, most likely.

 

* PS:T is only there as opposed to higher because it has much less replayability for me due to the nature of playing different variations of the same character rather than an entirely different character each time, as well as not having the option to create a full party. Those things, especially the first, are quite important to me, but I still consider it one of the best games I've played.

 

Its always kinda interesting to see how classic crpg fans really hate modern Bioware.. I guess its because modern bioware doesn't seem to target crpg fans.

They don't. In my opinion, in fact, they're getting closer and closer to just giving up on roleplaying altogether, as per their voiced PC/dialogue wheel (also known as not even being able to tell what your character is going to say) shenanigans. Sure, they still make games that are at least more of roleplaying games than some out there, but that's about as far as it goes any more. I'm getting the suspicion that DA:O was the last BioWare game I'm actually going to completely like.

 

At least if you visit their forums, there seem to be way too many romance obsessed teens. Heck, their reputation has gotten to the point that I don't think you can even find a single interview with them that doesn't contain any romance questions.

Yep. Not only that, but the crowd of people who seem to want an interactive movie rather than a roleplaying game.

 

I personally don't think their games are horrible, the ones I have played are good for what they have tried to do. However, I find it really annoying how Bioware for some reason overhauls everything when they make new game, new aesthetics, new gameplay, writing changes and even retcons if you take a notice... All ME and DA games are so darn different from each other that its just annoying how they seem to be inable to keep things at least somewhat consistent.

Yes. This is another thing with their recent behaviour that is very annoying to me, especially since I personally consider DA:O a vastly superior game to DAII, and ME1 a rather noticably superior one to ME2. And so far, with each game comes a little bit less control over your character. So far they're still ahead of games that have a set protagonist, but that's been slipping steadily. If they get to the set protagonist point, I won't bother watching what they're doing any more.

 

Sooo yeah, I wouldn't really say that bioware rpgs are bad or mediocre, they mostly range from good to average and they are mostly enjoyable. Its just that obsidian and black isle rpgs(with some exceptions) are great so in comparison they come out as even worse. I do get the bioware hate somewhat, but I guess I just hate bethesda more I mean, bethesda games are fun, but they aren't rpgs no matter what people say and it annoys me when people praise them as such. I play Bioware rpgs for different reasons than I play fallout or such so I don't have the same expectations.

Interesting. To me, Bethesda is actually ahead of BioWare in RPG terms recently -- although in previous times, they were not -- simply because they haven't been cracking down so much on what you can do with your character.

 

Of course, everybody wants something a bit different out of RPGs, and most everybody seems to have their own personal classification of what is and is not an RPG. For me, it's all about letting me create and control one or more characters in the game. The rest of it, especially combat and mechanics, does matter a good deal to me in terms of game enjoyment -- but has little to no effect on rather I consider something an RPG or not (although if your character's abilities clearly have no impact on the combat, I'm less likely to consider something an RPG).

[So DA:I will have stronghold and crafting too]

I'd say that the real way that most people win is if both games -- and, ideally, many more games as well -- are excellent in their own ways and contain many elements that people like. Strongholds, in some form, are not terribly uncommon. It remains to be seen exactly what form they will take in Inquisition (I tend to take their marketing with a rather large grain of salt). PoE's version sounds more interesting to me from what I've heard of both, but I have mostly not noticed anything BioWare has released about Inquisition, because it mostly doesn't seem to be ending up in the places I go to look for it.

 

That said, I've no doubt whatsoever that PoE will be the better game, or at the least the game more to my taste ("better", after all, is largely a matter of opinion in such cases). I may purchase Inquisition as well, but that is by no means a definite thing at this point. Neither strongholds nor crafting systems are what I base my decision to play or not play a game on, and from my point of view, BioWare shot themselves in the foot with Inquisition the moment they announced they were going to keep the voiced PC and dialogue wheel and there is nothing they can do to fully dig themselves out of that hole save allow those things to be disabled -- which is not happening. I have my doubts about how much the combat will be improved from DA II as well, and combat in that game was an annoyance. They seem to have at least realised that people do want to play their own character rather than a variation on the defualt (although they don't seem to realise how crippling the voice/wheel mechanic is for that), so that could be a good sign.

 

As far as crafting systems go, I've yet to play a game that actually has a crafting system I enjoy rather than tolerate to one degree or another, so I'm not laying any bets on whether either game will have one I actually care for. I've heard nothing at all of what Inquisition's system will be like aside from that they say it'll be cool -- but of course they're going to say that, because why would they ever say it wouldn't be? As far as I know, no details have been released on that at all, whereas what I've seen so far of PoE's crafting system seems promising.

[What race will you play as?]

I voted elf, because that is likely what I'll have as my first main character, but I expect that I'll play them all eventually in one form or another (be it as more characters in that party, or as later main characters). Of course, that's also just what I'm thinking is most likely right now -- I might have a different idea by the time the game actually comes out and I'm playing it.

[Ammunition]

Realism and flavour is the main reason I would want such a system. I realise that there is no mechanical difference between that and a price drop or such, but I would rather have the experience of recovering arrows than of purchasing more cheaper arrows. Honestly, considering that being shot with an arrow is just as lethal as being hit with a sword and can be done from a far greater distance, my general inclination is that archery needs to be balanced with disadvantages rather than advantages, so I consider having to deal with ammunition in some form a positive in that respect.

 

It should also be said that I enjoy having limited resources to work with. I like having to make the decision of whether or not to use those special arrows in a fight, or for that matter whether or not to use the potion or scroll or what that I've been saving. If nothing else, I do believe that ammunition should remain a limited resource on the higher difficulty modes, and certainly on Path of the Damned, where one must always take into account that you need to win the fight the first time. I could see it being unlimited on low difficulties; that would make a fair amount of sense.

 

As for throwing axes and daggers, returning enchantments on those make a great deal of sense to me, so that's my preferred solution to having to buy lots of them (at higher levels, at least; I don't like seeing too many enchanted things show up at low levels).

[Conversational UI Design]

I rather like it, personally. I don't see a need for having the other party members' portraits there, unless you can choose who is saying each line (and I don't believe that you can), and any sort of buy/sell icons would only show up a small portion of the time, unless you attempt to trade with every person you meet with -- which, while humorous, seems unlikely. Therefore, always having room for them would have the effect of making the window seem more empty most of the time, not less.

 

I also find that I prefer the protrait being positioned as is, in the upper left.

[RPG elements that I would die for]

I'm happy with how Pillars of Eternity is shaping up thus far. There isn't anything major I would wish to add, although that could change when I know what exactly the combat will be like (combat may be the single thing I'm pickiest about in games). Most of the things that I have been dearly wishing for the return of in recent years are indeed present, it looks to be a very interesting setting in its own right, and that's enough for me.

 

Now, my ideal game -- leaving aside all limitations and realism with regards to making the thing -- would be some combination of a very in-depth strategy game and a very in-depth roleplaying game, starting as a pure roleplaying game at first level and working one's way up to conquering whole kingdoms/countries/worlds at extremely high levels. It would have an immensely detailed and realistic combat system, never pull any punches with regards to difficulty, and you could screw over the world entirely by accident if you weren't careful. There would be all sorts of various plots that look as though they could be the main plot at lower levels, but the real main plot wouldn't even fully reveal itself until you were already well into the conquering stage of the game. You could easily become hated by the populace even while saving them if you were disagreeable enough, and if you chose to go the villainous route, you could be as subtle or as overbearing and blatant as you like -- but you might end up getting taken out by an erstwhile band of heros. While I'm at dreaming here, dialogue would be only an input window and the program would be complex enough to figure out how to respond to it. Oh, and you could create more or less as many characters as you wanted to, and control them all seperately if you liked.

 

I don't expect that to happen anywhere except, perhaps, in a tabletop game. I'm content with quality roleplaying games for the computer.

[Ammunition]

I actually do prefer ammunition to be limited, and truly unlimited ammunition to be rare (I've nothing against Quivers of Plenty and such at higher levels). I've also nothing against an indestructible arrow or two at high levels. Ammunition recovery, however -- although not in the case of guns -- is something that I think makes sense, mitigates the cost of arrows and the desire to never use the special ones, but does not eliminate entirely the necessity of replacing ammunition. Better crafted or more highly enchanted arrows could be more likely to be recoverable after being fired, which would be another incentive to stock up on those as opposed to basic arrows.

 

As for bullets (gun bullets, not sling bullets), well, guns are likely damaging and powerful enough that not being able to recover their ammunition would be a reasonable drawback.

[Is there value in adding the ability to give yourself handicaps?]

I'm of the opinion that allowing one to impose restrictions on oneself is as far as should be gone with that. Allowing people to not spend all of their stat points or take a feat at every level, for instance, is fine; however, I wouldn't want some setting somewhere that says "restrict feats by one" or "have two less possible stat points". I'd be all for curses or improperly treated wounds or such granting penalties such as the proposed -2 Reflex, however. That'd be neat.

 

If I want a more challenging experience, I'll generally do so by assigning myself certain rules for a particular playthrough. I often play Baldur's Gate or  Icewind Dale in that manner, limiting the number of times I can reload or eliminating them entirely, and setting rules about where I can or can't pick up new party members and such (and I typically play without making use of resurrection at all).

 

I dislike flaw systems. I'm not entirely sure why, to be honest, but I've never liked them in any game that has had them. Perhaps it's because I believe that such things should be chosen based purely on character building and roleplaying reasons and not to gain an advantage, and such systems often have the flaw giving an advantage as well.

["Follow me!" toggle.]

I don't see the point of it in general, since once can always select the entire party when you want them to go somewhere, and only select one party member if they're the only person you want moving.

 

A single file formation could come in handy, however. I have no problem with moving people one by one over tricky or trap-laden areas, but it would surely be easier to simply set them to walk in a line.

[Drunk and sit system?]

They've said that there is no multiplayer, yes?

 

In any case, even if we assume that there is, I would assume that any telling of stories and what would then take place while the people are playing the game. You don't have to do that in a specific spot, after all; you can talk to the person you're playing with, either in person or via text in the game.

 

I do like having the option to order drinks in inns such as was in Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate and all, though. The rumours were sometimes interesting, and sometimes funny situations would come about by having the whole party stumble off drunk to some battle. I don't really care whether there would be an animation for it or not, though. Rumours that aren't heard other ways would be neat.

[One question to devs]

I've really never had any interest in romances, be it in books, films, or games. As such, I would be perfectly happy if there are none in PoE. I don't mind at all if there are, though -- I don't have to do them, clearly many people enjoy them, and beyond perhaps the first playthrough (possibly not even that) I doubt I'll be bringing the NPCs along in any case so it probably won't come up for me any more than it did when playing Baldur's Gate II.

 

I don't believe that the inclusion of romances makes games at all better, but I also don't believe it necessarily makes them worse (although there are some cases where I think it might; I strongly dislike it when the only way to interact with a particular NPC is romance or almost nothing, and I'd much rather have higher quality NPCs across the board than one or two who have had more time and resources spent on them due to being romance options). The only upside to having them there, from my point of view, is to have that option there if not pursuing one of them would be out of character for the character I'm playing (a rather rare circumstance, for me). Granted, I'd actually rather not even have that option so I don't then have to sit through all the sappy dialogue and whatnot, but there have been a few cases when I've felt it added to playing a particular character through a game. A lot more cases where I never touched on any of the romances and was quite happy that way, and also a few cases where something else and seemingly more inconsequential added far more to the experience, but I won't say that they are always completely without merit.

 

I will say that they're very, very low on any list of things I want out of a game. They're still above "dogs everywhere" and far above "voiced PC", but those are, respectively, something I actively don't want at all and something that hinders my enjoyment of a game to such an extent I'll be lucky if I make it all the way through the game once.

 

Now, interaction of any sort between different NPCs in the party is probably a good thing. I can't say I'd be wild about that being romantic interaction (see: not intersted by such), but as it would presumably make sense for the characters in question, I'd not have a problem with it either. Could maybe be interesting under the right circumstances.

 

 

moment of realization:

So... just how many women and homosexuals are there, expecting PoE, and do they/you feel different about all that "romancing"? I'm honestly curious because, sadly, I don't know any female or gay gamer IRL so I never had any chance to discuss it "outside the box".

To make it worse I didn't even read anything about it, given that 99% game journalist I follow are men and overwhelming majority of them are straight.

 

So, is it a factor? Or am I making narrow minded fool of myself here?

 

Eh, personally I doubt it's a factor (unless, cynically, it could be that some developers assume that it would be and in that fashion make it one). Some people like them and some people don't, and I expect it's a similar distribution for women and homosexuals to what it is for men and heterosexuals. To speak from experience, I obviously don't care for them. Most people I know, men and women, like them more than I do. My perception is that on forums the people arguing for them are a fairly mixed lot, as are those arguing against them.

[New Stretch Goals: What you'd pay for]

I believe that more wilderness areas were mentioned, and if new stretch goals turn out to occur, I would consider paying more for that. Other than that, general improvements is the only thing I can think of, although a few other things that people have mentioned (more side quests and such) might be nice.

 

So if there were new stretch goals, as mentioned, what goals would get you to pay in more?

 

A stab in the dark:

 

$5 Million: PS4/Xbox One version.

 

$5.5 Million: Stronghold gets customizable themes/upgrades (evil/civilized/nature) instead of just a linear series of upgrades

 

$6 Million: iOS/Android version.

 

$6.5 Million: Stronghold now gets a customizable town to lord over and grow.

 

$7 Million: Post release co-op/multiplayer mode. The big one right? Heck yes.

Multiplayer and extra stronghold things are the only items on that list which I would possibly pay more for.

[Creating My Whole Party at the Very Beginning]

I do enjoy creating my whole party from the beginning, but I have no problem with creating them at different times throughout the game. One typically ends up with a full party of NPCs not all that late into the game, so I expect that we'll also be able to have a full party of PCs not all that late into the game. It will likely make things more challenging in the early parts of the game, and I am usually all for that. I do hope the fee isn't too large, or my parties shall likely all become thoroughly broke from hiring so many new people, but on the other hand that could also add an interesting challenge -- and an incentive to be even more careful in planning things.

[Fear: UIv2]

1. Here are couple of examples of hardware related maters that I was able to think of: Post 1,second part of Post 2.

2. I haven't made any claims about the best UI for any given game, I explained why I think that the U style design doesn't work and I expressed my opinion that UI isn't made from nostalgic sentiments, but from practical suggestions.

3. BTW today the vast majority has widescreen monitors, they are probably not those which are going to get scaled.

All right. Well, I think that if one put the feedback box to one side and the buttons to the other side it would work better for widescreen, and I don't think that your widscreen example in the first post you linked looks that bad (although I think it would look better if the feedback box remained the same size and was just surrounded by more stone). On the other hand, I do agree that the UI should be functional for all aspect ratios, and if most people who have widescreens dislike a stretched out bar such as that then it does indeed present a problem.

 

I assumed that you were referring to the poll because your preference was opposite to how it turned out, so I apologise for that; it was leaping to conclusions. The part about nostalgia was mostly more generally directed as well, since that is something that I have seen said quite a lot to dismiss people's preferences towards anything that is not the newest thing (just as I've seen other people dismiss people preferences for styles that happen to be newer by saying that they only want the newest thing; neither is useful and both are annoying). Your post reminded me of that, but I should've made it more clear that this was a general thing and not addressed specifically to you.

 

I realise that the majority use widescreen monitors at this point, and that I am decidedly in the minority with my 5:4 monitor. The problem, indeed, is that (as per your mockup in the first post), if the UI fits the aspect ratio of my monitor or even slightly less square ones it leaves large blank gaps on a 6:9 monitor, and if it would fit a wider aspect ratio it would get squished or cut off on mine. Looking at your second post there, your example of an artistic UI looks good, and I would certainly not be averse to something like that which is easy to expand and contract and also looks good.

 

Also, I agree that their original mockup in Update #54 is still the best I've seen. My only slight problem with it was that I am not fond of square character portraits, because I prefer them slightly taller than they are wide, but everything else looked fine to me. I don't even mind the square portraits all that much; it's just harder to get an aesthetically pleasing crop of the larger portrait in there. What we've seen of the journal screen and such also looks good so far to me.

 

Morgulon the Wise's mockup on page 21 of the Update thread is the only other one I've thought looked good so far, but that's with a sidebar, which to me would be an improvement but which we know is not happening (I do far prefer having the character portraits up along the right side; the right side of the screen is where I tend to look first).

 

I do, for example this post is nothing but an talk of nostalgia, rather than something practical that can be used.

I did make a suggestion, which I feel makes sense. Yes, widescreen monitors are more common, but often what happens if you scale something that was intended for widescreen to a non-widescreen monitor you get a rather squished and too-large UI with text that is also glaringly large. I find that problematic. A central area that is the same for all aspect ratios with some manner of decorative extenders for widescreens makes the most sense to me. Granted, I am clearly speaking from the perspective of not having a widescreen monitor, so that could be a solution that is aggravating to most who do have them. I don't know.

 

The same sort of thing often comes up as a problem with websites, which is a problem I'm personally more familiar with dealing with, and certainly in that case it's better to have extra space on the sides for widescreens than to have non-widescreens not able to see all of it. It seems to me that this would be the same in the case of UI design.

 

You presume wrong. I think that U shaped UI like in BG won't work here(and that a bottom design is very likely is a done deal) other than that all those assumptions about me preferring "minimalist", "drifting", non "solid UIs" or whatever, is nothing but your black and white view. Just because its bottom UI it doesn't have to be any of that and as far as I seen in Obsidian early non painted mockup, it wasn't.

Yes, the bottom design I think is a done deal, so I view much of this discussion as a theoretical excercise. I've already admitted that I took the post of yours I quoted in error, it would seem: I assumed that your response meant that you did not favour a solid UI, as the poll being referred to was about that question. Everything I said still holds true as my opinion about people who do prefer minimalist or non-solid UIs, but clearly then that does not include you.

 

I don't believe it's black and white, though. There are some grey areas, but mostly games have either had a completely solid looking and stationary UI or a seethrough and movable one. There have been cases I can think of with seethrough and stationary ones, but no solid looking and movable ones that come to mind. I can also think of a few that have mostly seethrough or minimalistic UIs but have more solid ones on character screens and such, and I do prefer those to the completely seethrough style, although I prefer a completely solid style.

 

There has not been a UI that I was fond of in an RPG since Lionheart, but I don't think it's impossible to design one that would work with widescreen and high resolution monitors as well as with non-widescreen and lower resolution ones -- although I do definitely think that it is harder.

[Console commands / cheat codes, and why they are a lifesaving feature]

Cheat consoles aren't something that is specifically put in for the players, but they something that I like to find and use in these games -- because with the way I prefer to play, say, Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate, I have to use them to bring new party members up to more or less the level of the current party as when one character dies, they are dead, and then I make a new one. Trying to introduce a first level character into a party of tenth levels or so is not going to work except perhaps for a spot of dark humour.

 

Of course, that might not be needed in this game, if Adventurer's Hall recruits are always the base of your level or some such (I can't recall now if they've said whether this is the case or not). If it is needed, though, I will be hoping to figure out how to enable the cheats.

 

I myself don't use the cheats for anything else, but I certainly understand that people with strong phobias would want to zap spiders and such. My own phobia is luckily not severe enough that dogs scaled down that far bother me (although their barking and howling and all does creep me out a little), but I can understand. If that had been an option in Dragon Age, I'd probably've done it on replays, even though on the screen they just make me rather uncomfortable (and a bit jumpy late at night, sometimes). And no, looking at them doesn't help. I once spent several hours looking at pictures of dogs just on the off chance it would help, but all it did was give me nightmares.

[Kickstart Backer Badge]

I completed the Pledge Management a while ago and have been missing mine since, but I only just noticed this thread.

[Volunteer voice actors?]

An interesting idea, but I believe it would be far more trouble than it would be worth. Most of the people here are probably not very good at voice acting -- although there may be some who are, I shan't rule it out -- and of those of us who are actors of any sort at all, most of us probably don't have proper voice recording equipment (I know I don't). Carrying out such an audition process would be quite a pain all on its own and would take up a deal of time.

 

As I would have no problem with it even if I discovered that there was no voice acting whatsoever in the entire game, although I do find the occasional snippet now and again to add to the experience, I don't think that adding a few more snippets more would be worth all that trouble. Besides, it isn't all that hard to get enough actors together for the amount of dialogue they have (actors, as a rule, are more plentiful than the work for them), and it would be far easier for them to just do so by their normal methods -- or even a volunteer call in the studio's area specifically -- rather than trying to wrangle a large group of online volunteers into getting the right lines with the right direction and the right recording quality sent in on time.