Frenetic Pony

Because the game is pre-rendered (or at least the backgrounds are) DPI and resolution are the same thing. Certainly, in other terms, you should then just be able to select whatever "zoom" level you are comfortable with once multiple resolutions are rendered and available. Which is pretty much all there this is to this conversation, which makes me wonder how the heck this went on for three pages.

None of the above? As minimal as possible, with things only ever even appearing when you actually need them. See Civilization 5 for a good example. I want the interface to only be there for it's exact purpose and no more, without taking up anymore screen realestate than need be.

Not to mention: Summoned monsters not transition through area changes. No actual geometry besides distance, E.G. a I fling a fireball onto a platform "above" me party and it still hits my party, because things are only screen distance and not actually 3d. Etc. I'd have preferred a game that's just in modern 3d environment and not pre-rendered. But that decision seems to have flown already.

So, stats. These are assumedly going to fall into line somewhere around the D&D/Fallout/Etc. archetype of Strength/Endurance/Intelligence and etc. And when playing through Icewind Dale 2 recently, it occurred to me that if the stats are used as they are there, they are quite easy to game. For example, what is the point of a race that takes a "- 2 to strength and +2 to intelligence" and then you are given 16 extra points of stats to implement right at the beginning? There's no point. I end up, in pure mechanical terms, with having the same range of stats available to me. I've same totaly and can get any stats up to the same total that I want to. Heck, first thing I can do is get everything back to 10 across the board. Further, it can be very easy and grossly advantageous to min/max for each class type. I have a wizard? Eighteen intelligence for him, may as well have 18 dexterity and 18 endurance as well, he doesn't need strength or wisdom or charisma really, as he's probably not going to use them. And that's the problem right there, the "easy" part. If it was a challenge then at least it might fun. So this calls several questions, ones that you can answer above and below.

So you're making a pre-rendered background game... Alright, not precisely what I expected, but not surprising. Technology has obviously advanced far and away over the last decade and since the last Infinity Engine game. If I could be so bold as to make some technical suggestions? Store the backgrounds as BC7 textures as well as DXT, choose based upong platform. I know uncrompressed textures are going to seem important for what is essentially the main art being seen, but I'm also supposing there's no reason not to offer optimizations for memory, and that the actual background art will scale up to those wanting to play at, say, 2560x1600 or more. Heck, why not 4k or even 8k? Play it on a true Imax screen! Imagine the press demo Regarding this, the actual game size will almost certainly end up being huge if you let things get out of hand. Baldur's Gate 2 was a fairly low resolution, and is still a decent size on the hard drive today. Streaming in art textures for areas via DXT or BC7 from, for example, the X-Zips compression format will help not only keep the game playable on ANYTHING, but keep the game a nice size to download as well. After all, you'll certainly be making the most sales digitally. Point being, compress as much as you can and decompress at runtime! Another thing I'd consider is dynamic object integration and dynamic lighting. Characters and other objects need to sit in their environment, and can do so far better than a decade ago. Pre-calculated environment maps applying as both specular and diffuse terms to anything dynamic should sit very well. Point of interest based blending between the probes should help keep lighting smooth: http://t.co/1ya9BZ5F And did I say dynamic lighting? I did, and why not. With most everything pre-calculated I'm wondering if Unity will allow you to load depth and normal maps from the environment as well. Enough to get dynamic lighting via deffered shading, from say spells and etc. onto the environment; all without actually spending great amount of GPU time on it. It could also easily be turned off, a good scalability feature. The only other thing I could suggest, besides bloom/HDR which is not to be underestimated, (store the backgrounds in an HDR format!) is pre-calculated shadow maps. A single large shadow map per area should do, and you can pre-blur it! With the dynamic lighting this could bring character shadows casting realistically onto the environment, and environment shadows (higher frequency than those probes would handle) casting onto the characters. Of course, you could go even further, having point lights cast dynamic shadows as well. Since they sit in one place you could pre-calculate their shadow maps and blend with character shadows upon characters entering their influence. Since you're not actually calculating anything but per character shadows you could have nigh unlimited point lights casting shadows! (So long as they don't overlap). Speaking of scalability, making characters and other dynamic things look pre-rendered would be quite a feat, and make the game more coherent. I know Unity has good post-AA built in, just selectable and there for you. But another key feature is, if you're going to have normal/spec maps, and you should as they look great and modders can handle that easily, then high frequency normal map AA is great. You can find a good example via Web-Gl here: http://selfshadow.com/sandbox/gloss.html and an overview here: http://advances.realtimerendering.com/s2012/Ubisoft/Rock-Solid%20Shading.pdf . Of course, maybe the Unity store already has this, or Lean mapping, I don't know. The Unity store has a lot of things. Beyond that, all I can think of are a few other tricks. Screen space refraction and chromatic dispersion could be cool for spells and little stuff like flame affects. Standard reflection camera blended into water for character reflections? Maybe. Anyway, whether any of this strikes a chord or not I'd just like to say best of luck!

So long as it's hard to revive dead characters I'm fine. I don't mind getting "knocked out" and then getting killed if the knocked out character dies from taking extra damage or something. But the "game over only when the entire party is knocked out" style has always been far too easy for me. Then again I'm finding my first playthrough of Icewind Dale 2 to be generally fairly easy, so I can't speak for everyone. Maybe you could tie it to difficulty level? Like on normal or easy your characters can only get knocked out, and it's game over when they all get knocked out, but on hard and above your characters die and you need to march back to a priest to revive for a lot of money. Sounds like a good compromise to me anyway.

So, in fictional works there's an archetype of character that is very popular, but has never been a class for an RPG. Probably because it would be hard to do so, especially as so many things are combat focused. And that's the clever archetype. A character that uses their charm and wits more than bashing heads. Think of Jack Sparrow, or Tyrion Lannister. Or how much Gandalf and Dumbledore just use their wits rather than any magic in particular. Now, granted, this is all non combat stuff. But as non combat mechanics they could be fascinating to use. Imagine a character that can distract intelligent enemy types while the rest of your party sneaks past (or get into position...). Or being able to convince a band of ugly little goblin like critters (goblins?) to just join on your side of the fight. And, I know, combat is a huge part. So what combat mechanics could this class bring? I'd imagine something described as a "Captain" type class, that gives non magical buffs for your party and de-buffs against enemies would work. Mark an enemy and your party gets plus to hit against them. "Encouragement" could give bonus damage and/or a better chance to dodge enemies. Some string of distracting insults could make the Captain, or whatever class this is called, the target (aggro) for a lot of enemies. Imagine using the aggro draw ability "your mother smells like elf in heat!" and then running back to your trap laden corridor, drawing an entire room full of enemies in behind you. Or just drawing them behind you, swallowing an invisibility potion, and then getting your party past to that cave your supposed to go into, all without starting a fight. Meaning, overall, there's a possibility I see here for a class that hasn't been done before. I'm sure others see it to.

Hardcore, oldschool RPG means give me my hardcore gameplay, all limited ammo I say! Though in terms of DEGREES, I suppose I wouldn't really be that upset with unlimited regular ammo. Though in playing through Icewind Dale 2 co-op right now, having my rogue run out of bolts and need to switch to a returning throwing Axe was actually kind of interesting.

You have to be careful with more than one type of currency. Borderlands 2 has that. It's called Irridium, and since it can only buy certain items, items I quickly ran out of needing far before I ran out of Irridium, it became this useless thing that I'd actually be annoyed to get. "Oh, more Irridium. Could have been something useful. But now I've got more purple junk." I suppose, if you made certain currency able to be used in certain areas, instead of only for buying certain things, with an exchange rate plus fee that made you lose money, then it might be a neat thing. But I'm thinking possibly not, and might just annoy people. All in all, the best I can think of is Dragon Age. There were so many ultra high cost and highly effective items that I wanted that it drove me to actually want money in return. Because there were more than I could ever buy, with the way money was limited, there was always a motivation to get money. I'm fairly certain, beyond avoiding any obvious exploits, that's the real goal of an economy in these types of games.

No

I've never used a paladin in any game where they're available, and never liked them as characters when they were available either. Stuck up so and so's. But Bards, or rather D&D 3.5's take on bards, are more interesting. I like how they've come from the nordic myths of bards as travelling, singing storytellers with mythical powers to expand to other areas. To basically anyone that uses charisma as a weapon. Jack Sparrow, or rather Captain Jack Sparrow would be a "Bard" under D&D 3.5. Which makes me want to call them something else. Get rid of their reliance on "songs" and instruments, or rather their sole reliance on them as a class item and power. Instead I'd love to see them come with a much broader name and ideal. Someone that uses Charisma in general as a tool. Whether it's a rousing speech, or a clever misdirection, or etc. Something that would range from Gandalf (who's often more clever than using magic) to Jarlaxle to Tyrion Lannister. I'd not be sure of what to call this class. But certainly the traditional Bardic mythos could fit within, and more than any other class it's what I'd like to see.

DA:O had a lot of neat ideas that's certain. I would mention the magic system the most. Upkeep spells that take away a portion of mana in order to remain active indefinitely. Cone spells with a UI that clearly shows the area of affect. Combination type spells, such as using a fire spell to catch a grease spell on fire. The only other particular thing I can think of is the way characters had reactions above and beyond what is normally expected. They reacted to your actions, sometimes in dramatic ways, and had their own views on things and how things should be done. Definitely a step up from some banter and comments.

Randomization is fantastic! In certain terms. Randomized environments are bad, generally its true. Perhaps with the next console generation, a game with incredibly smart programmers dedicated to great random environments would have enough horespower available to make great randomized environments. Minecraft, since it has no particular geometry constraints in gameplay terms, wouldn't be minecraft without randomized environments. Project Eternity is neither of these. But! But there can be great randomization still. In fact it should be a key ingredient! Exact enemy placement and type should certainly be randomized for a lot of enemy encounters. There should be zones, where enemies X will spawn within. It could be a couple giant spiders, one really big giant spider and a few smaller ones, a horde of tiny giant spiders, or etc. Thus you never know exactly what you're getting, it's always something of a surprise. Heck, even some boss types could be randomized, and should be if possible! Imagine if the boss giant spider alternatively had a devestating charge attack that knocked you over, or alternatively spawned a horde of spider periodically, or alternatively were two big spiders with powerful poison attacks! You'd go in on a replay, instead of knowing what your getting you'd have to be prepared for a lot more. Secondly, loot can and definitively should be randomised. You should never know exactly what your getting out of a chest or an enemy or etc. The Elderscrolls has used this to great effect for quite a while. But what the loot actually is can be randomised as well. The stats and enchantments and etc. can all be randomised without terrible trouble on that new magic sword or ring you found; and to great effect such as in Borderlands and Diablo. Moving on to other randomization possibilities, randomized encounters can be very effective. Just take almost any roguelike, (FTL is my favorite) an increasingly broader and popular genre, for examples of great randomized encounters. Say you're travelling from one area to another, and you're popped into an area designed for a randomized encounter. You get starting scenario X, which is someone coming up to you and screaming "help, oh gods help my friend is in trouble!" You can then follow if you want, and then get either response to this Y or Z. Y being you save the friend from monsters, Z being it's an ambush! Randomisation works really well in a lot of games, it's simply that you need the time and effort to apply the right type of randomization to the right type of game.

So, the news that there was going to be an in game pet got me thinking. Why would you just have one, non functional, in game pet? Why couldn't there be a variety of pets. Let me explain. Normally, when you say "pet" in an RPG fashion you think of an animal companion as in D&D, Drizzt, etc. However there are other types of animal companions, purely functional in non combat scenarios, that could be added. An entire class in fact. You could have a hawk that, well, hawks your stuff. Maybe you come upon him as a messenger hawk from some mountain aerie outpost and recieve him as a quest reward. You can then send him out with stuff attached, and he'll bring back money in exchange. A tidbit silly maybe, but maybe he's a giant friggen hawk. Maybe a ferret type thing that wanders around and points at hidden stuff (traps, doors, a hiddent containter). Or even a dog like Fabe 2. There is of course, the donkey, from the Dungeon Siege games. A pack animal for extra inventory space. Or familiars, that grant bonus stats but can be targeted and killed. Point being, if there's enough time and resources, an entire class of small animal companions that do useful things could be created. Though personally I'd love to see them not just granted for some character class and chosen from a list. I'd love to see them require to be found in the world and earned, and even the ability that grants them to a class be something you actually have to make a tradeoff for, get a pet or get some knockdown attack for example. I'd think that would make them more special, and you might attach yourself more to them. If you had to earn that ability, and give up something. If you had to find that ferret, injured in the forest, and rescue him; you'd probably be a lot more personally attached than picking from a random list at a defined level like Neverwinter Nights did.