Frisk

And why not? Sure, I can see such concerns make sens in a MMORPG where players are competing against each other - many players are trying to get the "optimal build", and don't want anyone else to have an unfair advantage compared to them. But in a single player game? Get real.. It is simply nobody's business if someone else wants to play the game in a different way.

Why on earth should a game be "meant" to be played in a particular way? I consider that very idea to be nonsense.

Options also allow you to please a larger number of the potential buyer base. Take combat difficulty for example. At one extreme you have players who see combat as an annoyance and want it to be quickly and easily resolved to they can continue to the exploration or storyline they enjoy. At the other extreme you have those who primarily enjoy the game because of the combat challenges and want them to be extremely hard, are require advances strategy and tactics to complete. Without a difficulty setting it would be next to impossible to please both extremes. Same goes for a number of other typical option settings....they are a way to allow the game to appeal to a larger base.

The developers just posted something that basically illustrates the "2.5D" of PE: Basically a 2D background - then they add 3D objects to allow creation of walkmeshes and such, but we don't really have the 3D objects in the game - basically just the 2D images from the location of the camera. It might be best to think of the PE areas like a "fold-out" scene - a flat background, 2D structures rising up from it, and a walkmesh that winds its way between the structures. This is less demanding on the graphics card than a full 3D environment - instead of real-time rendering, each environment object only has to be pre-rendered once, but of course the disadvantage is that you cannot "upgrade" the graphics by switching to higher-resolution textures like you could do in some 3D games.

Well, I have a job and a family If I'm lucky, I'll have 30 minutes per day to play the game. I want to be able to save whenever something more urgent needs my attention. I am, however, fine with not being able to save in the middle of combat.

Uhm...That might be completely irrelevant to what PE will be doing. It is perfectly feasible to mix regular 3D models for players and monsters with pre-rendered backgrounds.

Eh, no....absolutely not. The whole point of "gray" is to make actions have consequences which are not necessarily "good" or "evil" - at least not for everyone involved. You make a choice which will affect the storyline in some fashion - perhaps the way you intended, but perhaps there will be unexpected (and unwelcome) secondary results. The game can present the player with a moral dilemma - do you burn down a village to stop the spread of a plague that would otherwise kill a huge number of people? Do you release the prisoner you found in the dungeon, even if you know he intends to go on an elf-killing massacre? Choices are absolutely not irrelevant - in fact, they become much more interesting when you know they will have both "good" and "evil" results - instead of just gibing you a +1 or -1 on an imaginary "alignment" scale.

Dynamic environment, where you can basically blast/burn/smash anything ... is simply not going to happen. We already know that much of the environment will basically be pre-rendered - the stuff you see will not exist as individual objects, and thus cannot be destroyed as such. Of course there will be objects in the game that you can interact with - maybe buildings you can set on fire, chests you can smash or statues you can blast into small pieces, but that will be the exception - implemented on a case by case basis if it serves the story purpose, and those things will anyhow exist as independent objects, not as a part of the background.

....or being a selfish, backstabbing, arrogant bastard, and enjoy the rewards....and have to deal with any consequences.

As I mentioned in a similar thread on changing companion alignment, I would love to see the companions have a different degree of...let's call it "moral flexibility". Some of them might be flexible and come over to your world view - adopt your ethics - perhaps reluctantly, but they would develop to accept and support your typical actions. However, others might be more stubborn, and unwilling to budge - if you continue to behave in a way that is unacceptable to them, they might get angry and leave, attack or betray you. Alternatively they might argue with you - try to get you to adopt their view of life. More importantly, there should not be a single "reputation" scale (like in BG), only reputations for the various "factions" - some companions should not care one but how good/bad your reputation is with some factions, but be VERY sensitive towards your reputation with others.

"Good" vs. "Evil" is a bit too simplistic in my opinion. People, or characters in a game can have specific ethics, systems that lead them to make certain choices - now, in some cases their ethics can be summarized in simple ways: I do whatever makes me feel good at any given time. I do whatever benefits myself the most, maximizes my wealth, power or prestige. I do whatever benefits my family/tribe/nation/race/species most in the short term. I do whatever benefits by family/tribe/nation/race/species most in the long term. I do whatever maximizes the well-being of the maximum number of sentient beings most for the maximum period of time. Are any of those choices obviously "good" or evil" - is there even any agreement on what "good" and "evil" mean? I tend to favour the meta-ethical moral relativism view - which basically answers those questions with a "no" - I don't like black and white choice - It's all about shades of grey for me.

With some previous games, we got a toolkit, including resources, which would essentially allow us to create the entire game or modify whatever we wanted. That is just not going to happen with PE - we are NOT going to get anything resembling the NWN2 or DA toolsets - don't get your hopes up. The basic reason is simple - in those cases we essentially got what the developers had to build in order to build the game itself and all the resources were a part of the game. This time things are different - some of the primary resources are not a part of the game as such (example 3D models used to make backgrounds), and there is also the issue with Unity - it simplifies a lot of things for Obsidian, but may impose certain restrictions in this area. However, even though me might not get a toolset as such, we might well get some tools ... stuff developed internally. I wrote an overview here which lists some (reasonable) expectations. I would be happy if Obsidian provides us with more, but overall, I expect that whatever we get from them (combined with whatever the community can come up with) should allow the community to produce a reasonable range of mods and additions.

Nothing wrong with dolphins - or their larger whale relatives - I like them a lot - both sashimi-style or lightly barbecued.

If I remember correctly, some recent update said the fulfilment site would be opened within the next month or two.

I don't like spell components at all, and for "soul-based" magic they make even less sense than usually. However... I would be fine with items that would somehow help you focus your magic - items that would be necessary to allow two mages to cooperate on casting a really powerful spell or items that somehow store "soul energy" and allow you to cast spells that would otherwise be beyond your ability. Magical components in general....no thanks.

One big "advantage" of races that have basically a humanoid body, with animal heads is that "standard" armour pieces can be assumed to fit them ... yeah, well...maybe with small modifications, like a hole for a tail, or something like that.

Weapons, eh? I am simply going to assume we will have swords, axes, bows, daggers, clubs (and flails), but what about other weapons - crossbows, polearms or spears, for exa,mple. Any truly exotic weapons? Any "oriental" weapons (shuriken or "ninja" weapons?)

What would make this really, really fun is if the companions would react very differently if your actions clashed with their ethics and world-view. Basically, the companions would have a different degree of...let's call it "moral flexibility". Some of them might be flexible and come over to your world view - adopt your ethics - perhaps reluctantly, but they would develop to accept and support your typical actions. However, others might be more stubborn, and unwilling to budge - if you continue to behave in a way that is unacceptable to them, they might get angry and leave, attack or betray you. Alternatively they might argue with you - try to get you to adopt their view of life.

I want extensive replayability, but I want it to come from different choices I make - either during character creation or during playing - choices like how I tackle particular problems, which companions I pick and so on. Randomness has its place - I'm fine with the occasional random encounter when traveling, and of course I expect minor loot to be random to a certain degree, but randomness is not a factor for replayability for me. As far as randomly generated areas go - no. Not in this game. It can work fine in tile-based games and such, but here we are hoping for beautiful, handcrafted large areas - not randomly created ones.

Something like this would really appeal to players that enjoy exploration and puzzle solving....I'm VERY much in favour of something like this.

It might make sense that a wounded opponent fights less effectively than one in full health - perhaps with a lower chance to hit, perhaps with fewer attacks. Then again, it might be better if such factors depended on current stamina level - basically, as you get tired, you fight less effectively.

To make things really interesting, sometimes the "pacifist" option should be the "best" option, in the sens that you get the best reward with the least effort. but sometimes it should have a cost - maybe in gold, but maybe in reputation or other ways. However, I don't want only "bloodless" options - I would like to see scenarios like these. You sneak into an enemy camp, and manipulate things so that the enemy group ends up in an internal fight - and when only a few weakened survivors are left standing, you walk in and wipe them out easily. You bribe a guard to let you in through a backdoor, so you can get in and loot the place, instead of having to do a full-scale assault on the place. You convince a raiding group to go back to their homeland, and help them taking some of your current enemies back with them as slaves. To me it is all about accomplishing the goal, using the "best" method in each case...but sometimes the only viable method is simple you hack your opponents into small pieces. I just want alternatives, whenever feasible.

That is certainly doable, and what you would do is to "place" 3D objects "on" the pre-rendered background, and those objects could include things like moving windmill wings, treas with leaves that move in the wind and so on - this is really no different than having animated characters and monsters. (In some cases you can get animation effects by using animated textures on a non-moving object ... say, a water surface). This might perhaps be combined with a layered pre-rendered background with the walkmesh winding its way between the layers, but that's an implementation issue.

Well, I wouldn't call 50 locations "few", but even if that is the case, keep in mind that to get to some of those items you might have to solve an entire quest chain, so it's not just a case of running to one particular cave, hacking the inhabitant to bits and collecting the loot. Anyhow, if someone wants to play the game just focusing on getting the "phat l00t" they are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned - I just feel sorry for them.

Hiring craftsmen would also be a nice way to fill up that stronghold players will be able to get. Just post a "Wanted: Alchemist" note, and hire one.