stkaye

Ok i understand that, but find in this forum at least ONE post that new race should be named "Orlans" or "AUAUAYA" Before they anouced it in updates. This are their (obsidian) ideas not ours, if they don't even put any work for see our ideas and thay starting to act like we don't exist then it is source of problems. They don't even Asked us if we like this name, it seams that this game is for Obsidian not for US. And when i say US i mean players who had their OWN opinion and they don't eat anythin that obsidian prepare for them but can ask at least "What am i Eating ?" And "Orlans" came from what ? Folklore ? Oranguthans ? or what ? They don't even put ANY effort to see if WE like thins name. They put it becouse they whant to put it nothing more. I'm not jumping, they say it was LARGE and nothing more, this are only MY speculations. Im saying that if you must do " haveing gay romance" when you don't whan't to becouse it's only option to gain something is only a exaplme of "Not lisening to the fans". And if they think that "Not lisenind to the fans" is good idea (they gave money so hell with them) P:E will sheare the fait of Dragon Age 2 I think you're labouring under a misapprehension here. Obsidian doesn't have to 'check' with anyone before putting in ideas they like, and it doesn't need to take a poll of supporters before announcing a new feature. It is their game. Now if they see a cool idea or a good argument on these forums or elsewhere, they may well think about implementing it. But they're crowdfunding this project precisely because they don't want to be beholden to their financiers this time around. I've donated some of my money to this because I trust Obsidian, I'm excited by their ideas so far and I want to see them finished. The creative freedom is still Obsidian's, and so is the final word on the content of the game. They will work hard to make the targets of their project - classic RPG fans - happy; to give them an exciting, immersive, innovative game to play. But you will not like their every decision. I will not like their every decision. And thank goodness for that.

The big thing I can think of is that, even in the best designed isometric games, sometimes things will be behind other things. An important item dropped behind an open door; a lootable corpse fallen behind a barrel. BG was really good at pulling out walls and offering ways to highlight interactable objects, but still wasn't perfect. Anyone remember Little Big Adventure, where you could rotate the scene by 90 degrees in any direction? Or even the Sims. Neat solution. Probably won't work with pre=painted backgrounds.

Those narrated dream sequences in BG1 had the best music. Purest immersion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6hPHtzrfCQ Whatever happened to Michael Hoenig, anyway? Would love for him to have some influence on the game.

This. In terms of plot-enemies - that is, baddies who you'll certainly encounter if all you're doing is running the main quest line - the OP is right that there's a few very clear lines of progression. You run into a lot of individual bounty-hunter types in the early game (sometimes with a mate or two) who are clearly more powerful than the PC and demand teamwork and strategy as a party. And then there are the hordes of kobolds. The trash mob encounters get progressively easier through the game, really (never met a doppelganger I couldn't wipe out), but the 'named' enemies and human mercenaries always pose a challenge. Really good balance, making sure you feel increasingly powerful and challenged at once.

.....aaaand there's the downside of crowdfunding, everyone. Thanks for the demo.

Something of a generalisation. The first powder weapons were truly experimental, with a pretty high risk of killing their own operators, and thus did not become popular until a few things started happening: Established consistency in the composition, and thus volatility, of powder Workarounds for situations that could instantly render your weaponry useless (i.e. rain). Machining techniques capable of producing smooth or symmetrical projectiles, and barrels with few imperfections. As for firearms (by which I mean individual powder weapons), for a very long time there was little that an arquebus or similar weapon could achieve that you couldn't do with the true 'superweapon' of the mid-medieval: the crossbow. Crossbows were consistently more accurate than firearms (at least for several centuries), and could operate over greater distances, were usually cheaper to produce, and took the same (or less) time to reload for a similar degree of armour penetration. There's a reason why Pope Innocent II tried to ban their use in Europe: they threatened to democratise violence far too much. Firearms started to replace crossbows only when they were reliably shown to pack an even bigger punch, for less training. Also, crucially, the use of massed-ranks multiplied their impact: military tactics had to catch up. In PE, I think I'd rather want to turn to a crossbow for most ranged combat situations. That's the kind of time setting I'm rooting for.

I actually think that musket-level firearms (with relatively reliable flintlocks and starting to introduce rifled barrels) would already be a little too advanced. I'm hoping for super-primitive flintlocks, pre-flintlocks (hand-cannon with fuses), emplaced cannon, wheellocks and blunderbusses with zero ranged accuracy but a great deal of one-off damage potential. Also, maybe something like a Chinese fire lance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance Most of all, I'd like to see some amazing gunpowder/spell effect combinations!

Here's the crucial thing: the game must never break its own rules. Don't fudge the big bad's stats or blow on the virtual dice; don't switch me into a cutscene halfway through. As long as the rules are adhered to, you can throw in a super-tough enemy, or two... or as many as you think you can get away with without boring the player. In a well-structured RPG there's no monster levelled so high that it can't succumb to a combination of its own rotten luck and the player's good luck - or, best of all, some lethal, carefully planned combination of rare items, potions and mixed spell-effects. That's the way it should be. And that's me speaking as someone who beat a dragon in BG2 by accidentally polymorphing it into a squirrel.

Remember the skinner murders in BG2? I don't think I even fully resolved those quests until my second or third playthrough.

From the options here, I've chosen the alternatives that maximise the player's freedom, so I can customise the NPCs as I desire (and this makes more sense if you have a major hand in choosing their level-up skills and abilities over the course of the game - I won't really care if Duquesne has a longsword with his initials in it if I'm levelling him to wield a halberd. Right?). That said, you can see why, for example, DA2 went and put NPC armour management beyond the player's reach. It's silly and immersion-breaking to strip NPCs bare and then abandon them, so some mechanic where they won't let you quit the screen unless they have some kind of armour and weapon might be a good move.

Fantastic ideas. Studying the remains of beasts and monsters encountered for the first time could be a great way to make skillsy/rangery characters shine. Ranging from a proper monster-manual look at their stats to a combat-bonus the next time you face them (having discovered a weak spot or join in the armour...). Or for more literal intelligence, how about employing a thieves' guild (or just a street urchin, if you haven't the cash and standing) to tail folks or steal documents... EDIT: Just saw that Sollus had that second idea, only in a much better way.

I suppose my original post begged the question of comparison between DA:O and BG, in a way. It's fair to make such comparisons, and fair to conclude that BG is the better RPG (as I do, overall). As a compromise, DA:O has always struck me as a deeply impressive product. Even when considering its many shortcomings. Considering that it's caught between on one hand the demands of and trends of more contemporary gaming norms, and on the other the classic successes of the IE games... If you consider the other games that exist somewhere in the same space - Neverwinter Nights 2, DA2, perhaps KOTOR, well, by comparison, DA:O strikes me as being by far the most successful. So I guess I'm also asking - in terms of mechanics - whether we should expect PE to be a kind of a 'compromise' of this sort, or whether it should be uncompromising in its emulation of the IE games. It's not a question that I have a ready answer to.

... A third Baldur's Gate game was already in the works and then got canned - see all of the posts above you. Yeah, and now Trent Oster of Beamdog/Overhaul has specifically said he wants to use the Enhanced Editions to build up to a pitch for BG3. Which would bear no resemblance to Black Hound.

A third Baldur's Gate game could conceivably be a prequel. Set it in the Time of Troubles, Gorion as a party NPC, the birth and hiding-away of the Bhaalspawn in Candlekeep, etc. Hopefully it would be more Godfather Part II and less Attack of the Clones.

Okay, WTF, did you not play Planescape: Torment? Standard my arse.... *cough* What DA:O excelled in was the cinematic talking head full-VO department, which certainly gives the illusion of more "life" to the party NPC and is enough to trick most players--but it was very one-sided. How? Because you as the PC had fairly bland and superficial dialogues while the party NPC had personality and the "show." Seriously, DA:O had nothing on PS:T in this department, and it annoyed me so very much that DA:O marketing included some blurb claiming it had a higher word count (totally misleading because half of DA:O's textual content was stuck in the codex, not dialogic). ... Edit: The world quest-related postscripts at the end of DA:O were nice (e.g. that Dwarf girl quest) and probably the only thing I really liked overall, but it ended up being so buggy for me that it didn't even matter. Also, about the origins themselves... they didn't affect middle play as much as I hoped, so really most of the "innovative" content in DA:O happened in the first half hour of the game and last ten minutes. Don't get me wrong, I adore PS:T. But I really felt like Alistair in DA:O was a realistically goofy idiot who I actually would go to great lengths to befriend in the real world. That counts for something. And the first glimpse of the Qun philosophy via Sten was very rewarding, and I'd argue quite well-written too. ANYWAY. Lots of comments. It seems to me that there's a list of things that were good about Dragon Age emerging, and another (rather longer) list of things that people are hoping PE won't touch with a barge pole. So here are some initial ideas - A playable or choice-based PC origin at the start of the game would probably be a welcome addition to PE if done very well - especially if those origins tie into significant quests later on. The end-game written epilogues in DA were very effective (when they weren't buggy), responsive to player choices through the game, and offered a sense of completeness. Should we hope for something similar in PE?

BG1 was better than DA:O, but they excelled in different things. DA:O certainly had better big, extensive plot-quests, but no game has ever given me a sense of freedom, exploration and richness like the original Baldur's Gate. I get what you're saying re: DA2, but I'd invert the formula: DA2 was a fundamentally disappointing game, with some good parts to it. Including Varric.

Level 0 spells are truly useless, and it's hard to see cantrips getting implementation in a videogame (particularly combat-wise). Mages run out of spells when they're in tough fights. "I have used my final fireball, dragon, but do not think me now defenceless! Prepare for the power of my... TOUCH OF FATIGUE!"

This. A thousand times this.

For what it's worth, I thought Act 2 of Dragon Age 2 was the best part. Certainly plot-wise, and in terms of interesting things happening with NPCs and their relationships with the main quest. It's Act 3 that really, truly, horrendously lets the game down. I think I agree with most of your lists, though I don't have a problem with flashy magic. If I had magic I would want it to be flashy like a flashy thing.

The thing is, Tim Cain said in the latest update that the system they are considering would involve your lower level spells getting unlimited. Scaling with your level too, so at a start everything should be limited (as you are suggesting), but more and more of the lower level spells get unlimited as you level up. Level 1 spells, Level 2 spells and so on. Higher tier spells, I'm guessing from 5+, would always be limited. What I mean is a completely finite gameplay, where your lower tier spells do not become unlimited but they stay limited throughout the game. Ah, perhaps I didn't quite fully understand what was being proposed. In any case I agree with you; 'memorised' or spellbook spells should be completely limited, just maybe supplemented by magic abilities of other sorts to make sure a mage can always act like a mage.

I agree that spellcasters can get bored, particularly in the early game, running out of cool class-specific things to do. I don't agree that the way to deal with this is to make low-level spells infinitely reusable. The opening game, where first level spells are all you've got, could see mages becoming too powerful, and it will make scaling the power of these useful first-level spells later (a la magic missile) a headache. An alternative would be to provide class-specific magic abilities that are specifically designed to be reusable, but are never preferable to a specialised, memorised spell alternative. So a selection of basic magic blasts that can throw enemies around or damage/stun groups/individuals. These options could even be customisable as part of the character creation process - a fire mage could get a fire ability, etc.

Completely agree with all these. The bads were too obviously "definitely not orcs"; and every quest that wasn't an engrossing hours-long epic was basically a fetch-quest.

Spellcasters should definitely be limited in terms of what they can do with top-level spells. But the solution is not to make lower-level spells infinite, because at the start of the game the low-level spells are high level spells! When I run a D&D campaign, I run into a similar issue - spellcasters can feel underpowered (I tend to play 2nd Ed., by the way), or even run out of things to do in their turn. This is compensated a bit by the massively powerful spells that become available at higher levels, but it's a long time to wait for a pay-off. I usually add a spell or two that work like 'raw magic', and are always available to casters. One is like a magic missile, doing level-scaled damage (though the spellbook magic missile is always preferable); another might be a force-spell or distant manipulation spell, which allows mages to do cool things even after they've gone through their spell books (moving/throwing objects at a distance, hitting a switch from afar, throwing an enemy back a certain distance, that sort of thing). This system works pretty well.

So I'm a huge fan of the first Dragon Age game (and a huge not-fan of its sequel, so let's set that aside for a minute). At the time, DA:O represented a really significant and explicit attempt to pay homage to Baldur's Gate and the like, sidelining Bioware's ongoing trend of focusing the protagonist over their party and producing ever more cinematic gameplay. If we're talking about a return to the values and tactical play of the Infinity Engine classics, then it might be worth pondering DA:O's solutions to essentially the same problems, and figuring out what it got right and what it got wrong. Especially since DA:O's successes are often eclipsed by the failings of its sequel, which did a pretty good job of tarnishing the entire franchise in most people's eyes. Maybe I'm alone in this, but the combat and tactical play in DA:O felt really good to me; it still does. Playing as a thief and lining up those satisfying backstabs, with the big numbers showing just how many hitpoints you were chunking away from a bad guy... that was special. So was positioning your mage for a precise cone of cold, freezing every enemy and not one of your own party. And there's some really deep and rewarding characterisation and NPC interaction in this game as well. I mean, I really think it set a standard for making a friend out of a videogame character. This is all stuff I'd love to see in Eternity. What about Dragon Age's failings? No where near enough character/class creation options, for one thing, and ultimately a very limited set of abilities to choose when levelling-up. Overall not enough content, I'd say. Though I liked the large-scale, in-depth quests, the game fell signifcantly short of the (I think perfect) balance of questing achieved by BG2. What do you guys think? Are there lessons to be learnt from DA:O, or should Eternity pretend it never happened?

Yeah. I like a good map. For whatever reason, they've always been such a central part of my enjoyment of an RPG.