[good and bad from Arcanum]

I suppose, beyond the fact that it could essentially be recognized as "truth".  I mean, I think the choice of increasing endurance was somewhat arbitrary, but all the world's fastest and strongest people are men.  The Olympian equivalents in the women's fields are substantially slower/weaker.  That clearly does not mean that an Olympic woman power lifter wouldn't be as strong as an ordinary man, but just that when she is compared to a man that is at the same competitional level, she won't be his equal.  That is just physiology.  They could have made it more interesting by perhaps making female half-orc/half-ogres/dwarves stronger, as some sort of indication of the different physiology, but then again, I am not even sure that you had the option to play as the female variants of all of those (half-orcs, certainly, but don't know about half-ogres and dwarves). 

 

Now, personally, I didn't like that there were effective caps on intelligence, and I would venture to bet, charisma and beauty.  My half-orc genius could not obtain an intelligence of 18, which prevented me from having access to a wide variety of very useful schematics.  I suppose it could be argued that maybe he literally does not have the brain hardware to get there, but I believe that is a much more tenuous argument.

[good and bad from Arcanum]

I am not sure if English is not your native language, you are using tongue-in-cheek humor, or you are just trolling...

[Update #62: Production 01 - State of the Project]

 

For what it's worth, red-on-black is a very bad idea. I realize the text may not be just-plain-red, and the background isn't exactly black, but... well, let's just say it's awfully close to a bad idea.

 

Of course, I can't, for the life of me, remember what color the background is for the dialogue options in BG. I played it not a week ago...

Google is your friend if you can't remember.

 

BG2 did have red on black and IMO it looked very good.

 

 

Also also Red.

 

 

No big deal though I guess. It's not that it looks bad or anything.

 

 

Must say, I very much prefer all of those text UIs to the one presented.  The one in the update just has too much going on.  I really just want the text, not a huge slab of wood every time, that has some sort of preset pattern to it.  I mean, I don't feel it is very important, but I think that minimal is better.  Or, maybe you could use leather?  Leather would be more the way to go.  People aren't going to carry around books/journals with wood or stone bindings (maybe wood, but not likely)- they will have leather bound books and journals.  And given people used to write on leather, it actually makes sense.  Or leather and paper.  Really am not digging the wood thing.

 

Examples below...

 

[good and bad from Arcanum]

Well, without revealing anything, yes, I too think the story was rather excellent.  I really liked how you were essentially a detective, scouring the continent for all the information you needed, with every city and culture having a piece of the puzzle- there was a relation between everything.  Also, unlike in most RPGs, every area had some sort of connection with other, adjacent areas (the fading power of Cumbria, the competition between Tarant and Caladin, the sisters of Quintarra and the Dark Elven city, etc).

[good and bad from Arcanum]

 

basic break down of character viability:

 

well there are 13 areas to spend your points on:

str, dex, per, con, will, int, bea, cha, HP, fatigue, spells, tech, skills

 

melee - str, dex, skills = 3 (if you lack points in melee skill you injure yourself and thus dex and skill is highly required)

tech - int, tech = 2 (can't use on its own, needs to be hybrid with a combat capable group other than mage)

ranged - per, dex, skills = 3 (low damage output, low survival by itself, especially at low levels when you crit fail and drop weapon wasting time needed to kite)

mage - int, will, spells = 3 (potions and spells get stronger as you progress down this path, spells can boost attributes and replace some skills)

rogue - str, dex, per, skills = 4 (risky damage output, especially at low levels when getting the backstab in is a gamble)

diplomat - bea, cha, will, int, skills = 5 (can't use on its own, needs alignment and level to gain most followers)

 

resources needed for each general character type:

melee - gold, loot, HP, fatigue = 4 (needs gold to purchase equipment, repair equipment, and for training, has highest uses of HP of any group)

tech - gold, parts = 2 (needs gold for components and a lot more for schematics, may generate gold though, may find and use junk for parts)

ranged - gold, ammo, loot, fatigue = 4 (needs gold for ammo, repair, and training, needs to move a lot in combat to kite enemies)

mage - fatigue = 1 (spells cost fatigue, will need lots of it, only group that needs it more than melee)

rogue - loot, gold, lockpicks = 3 (gains lots of loot and gold when good enough, may have to be a melee class when failure happens)

diplomat - levels, alignment, follower, dialog choices = 4 (you start with nothing and thus can't use the skills)

 

gold requirement for each general character type:

melee - needs to buy armour and weapons, repair said items, and pay for a few select trainings

tech - if not built to make money then will need high income from somewhere to pay for parts and schematics, otherwise generates gold

ranged - needs to keep buying ammo, needs to buy and repair weapons, and pay for a few trainings

mage - none

rogue - buy lockpicks, buy and repair weapons, pay for lots of training

diplomat - arm and equip followers, can haggle for extra money, pay for some training

 

non violent gains:

melee - none

tech - produce items, one quest (it is possible without the schematic, but easier)

ranged - none

mage - 2 quests, free companions, poor man's lockpicking, free attribute gains (attribute gains are sustained spells, likewise the companions, lockpicking and companions have consequences, quest info possible through other means)

rogue - anything with items and gold can be yours (bad consequences if you fail)

diplomat - sell more, pay less, more dialog/quest options (dialog and quest options may be negated by other actions)

 

by using the above you can see how difficult a character combination can be even before playing.  going strong diplomat from the get go is pretty hard to do with the hefty CP drain and no real immediate benefits.  mage has lots of utility and only requires an average or less amount of CP, as it starts out viable and gets stronger it is also a far easier path than say a ranged tech user.  had the devs broke things down and balanced things for the different themes you might see more immediate uses for diplomacy, and a weaker starting spell selection.  pretty much the way the game is made you pick if you are going to back tech or magic from the get go if you want an easy playthrough.

 

 

Wow, that was a lot.  I'm not in direct disagreement, in general.  The thing is, I have played as every one of those characters. 

 

I just recently played as a high charisma warrior with 3 other (could have been 4) warrior followers.  I didn't have a problem securing enough money or equipment for my party, though I did get lucky a few times.  On that note, diplomats really don't need beauty and willpower.  Technically, they don't even need intelligence, but that is depending on who you are talking to.  On the basic level, all you need is charisma, and it doesn't take long to max that.  But, when you are making a diplomat, it is quite easy to also make a technologist or mage, since they need the same stats (to be highly effective), so why wouldn't you do it?

 

If you make a good fighter build, you won't be needing healing much, or potions for fatigue- especially if you have a healer in your group (which there are a fair number of options for- I can think of at least 3 which are accessible almost immediately after you leave the first town).

 

Playing as a tech character is perfectly legitimate, almost any way you want to do it.  Do you want to be a regular fighter?  Well, some of the tech weapons do the absolute most damage of anything in game.  Do you want to be an archer?  The basic compound bow is pretty powerful, and the incendiary bow is ridiculous.  Do you want to be a "gunslinger" or sniper?  There are a huge variety of guns you can make and use.  And no, you don't have to have any combat skills, if you don't want (though making any build without them would be silly).  If you build your character correctly, you can very rapidly have the absolute best tech equipment (Tesla rod, regenerative jacket, cure all, reanimator, fire obstruction, etc), which is much better than the majority of what you can buy in normal stores for pretty much the entire game.  You can even build a mechanical arachnid before level 10, which is pretty powerful.

 

If you are a technologist, learning how to make bullets makes acquiring bullets easy and cheap.  Every technologist can make things which can be sold to obtain money, especially as most components are cheap.  You talk about the basic healing or stamina medicines, and that is 19 and 34 gp for each unit.  So, if you spend 5 days doing nothing except churning those out and selling them, which is quite easy, you can make almost 1,000 gp, which is fairly respectable, given how much they cost to make and how easy it is to acquire what you need to make them.  You can sell the shocking staff for almost 900 gp, and it is also easy to make.  Most of the guns will earn you far more than they cost to make, even without good haggle skills.

 

Ranged weapons almost never get damaged, so that really isn't a cost.  And, when you say ranged, I assume you mean "bow".  I agree, being a bow user early isn't easy.  But, being a "throwing" fighter is.  There are plenty of good, relatively cheap, and effective, throwing weapons.  I made a throwing technologist that was constantly lobbing around grenades- pretty damn effective.  Also, almost no cost associated with a throwing fighter, as the weapons return to him (which, I actually think, is unbalanced and unrealistic, but that is how the game plays).

 

Rogues.  Generally agree that they aren't very good in combat, especially at low levels.  It is definitely a more difficult build to play.  But, it is also quite easy to build a good thief that can very early on, steal more than everything he will possibly need, and make TONS of money, which gives them a huge advantage over other types of builds.  You only buy lockpicks once, and that cost a whopping 45 gp.

 

Mages.  Definitely the "easiest" default way to go.  If you concentrate on a couple of spell schools early, you can become quite powerful.  But, you have to know how to play them.  If you never hit anything, it is hard to gain experience.  If you don't gain experience, you don't level.  For instance- you can disarm everyone, slow and blind them so your followers can kill them easily- works like a charm.  But, what experience did you get out of it?  Almost nothing.  You can open all the locks you want, but no experience will come of it.  You can heal everyone constantly, so they will never die- great!  But, again, no experience.  The only way you get experience as a mage is to be doing damage to things.  I think that is silly, really, but that is how it is.  And the damage spells usually are not "cheap" when it comes to mana.  Depending on how you built your character, you will likely need to buy mana potions, which while they are not super expensive, are not cheap either, especially if you need a lot of them.

 

I will say, for sure, that yes, you need to have a pretty decent idea of where you want you character to be at x, y, and z levels, otherwise your build probably won't work too well.  Also, I know where I can find everything in the game (in terms of trainers, and what cities have and sell what), so it is "easy" to build the right character and do the right stuff to maximize that character- meta gaming.  Chances are, your first, or even second, playthroughs will not be super smooth, because you really have to figure out how the whole system works, and what you can do with different types of characters.  But to me, that is the point.  I know how I can play as a mage- how about as a technologist?  I know how I can play as a fighter, how about a thief?  There are just so many possibilities, with very different outcomes, all of which can be wildly successful.

[good and bad from Arcanum]

snip

yes, i'm near the beginning of the game so it's not that surprising that i haven't learned that much about the history, culture, various conflicts, etc. i hope i learn a lot more as i get into the game bc the world, the lore, the culture, etc. are one of the most important things for me in an RPG.

 

one question: when the books refer to "man" do they mean only humans, the median races, civilized people, or what? or does that vary depending on the author (e.g., some groups mean the largest grouping whereas other groups mean a smaller subset)? 

 

i'm glad that training gets harder. i wish there would have been some quests (or, e.g., a requirement for positive reputation with the faction who trained you) even at the apprentice level or even some time passing as you were becoming an apprentice. it sounds like there are interesting quests to gain the master level in various skills. that's good. but do you have to take a particular side in an ongoing conflict to complete the master persuasion quest (or other master skills quests)? if so, is there a good in-game reason why only ppl who take that side can become extremely persuasive/(master other skills) (or, e.g,  is it a way to railroad ppl along one path/arbitrarily restrict gameplay options)? 

 

 

Trust me, there is plenty of that after you get to Tarant (though not so much in the other cities).  Similar to the level in BG 2 or the Elder Scrolls.

 

They are usually referring to humans.  You will find out if you investigate it more, there is all sorts of information regarding the distinction between the races, natural, supernatural and selective

 

The training isn't faction based- it is only individuals.  When you think about it, being an apprentice at melee doesn't mean much- anyone that has trained for a bit could teach you.  An expert requires training by someone that has put a fair amount of time into that skill/profession.  A master is someone uncommonly skilled, that has tested their abilities countless times and honed it to an art- so I think the access makes sense, for the most part.  But, whether they train you to mastery depends on whether you will do what they want or not.  If you don't want to do it, you can't earn mastery.  You can have the skill maxed out, but they won't teach you their "secrets", so you will be stuck at expert level.  And for almost every one of the master quests, there are a couple ways you can complete it. 

[good and bad from Arcanum]

snip

i do like the little touches that make the world more interesting e.g., the street signs, windows and chests jamming if you fail to pick the lock, the newspapers, the much larger variety of shops in Tarant than in Shrouded Hills or Dernholm, etc.  those are well done and add a lot for me. 

 

is backstabbing a passive ability? because i'm not sure when/if i'm ever backstabbing. 

 

does the fighting get significantly harder later in the game? i'm guessing it must if it would be useful to have several companions (other than as mules). also, is there a way to get your companions to backstab? is there a way to get them to help you in thieving or other actions? 

 

 

Backstabbing is a passive ability- you just have to be behind them, though I don't believe directly behind them is necessary.  You'll see the difference if you put it in turn based, which I highly recommend for that type of character (so you can actually get behind people and stay behind them).  Just stab them from the front, and then work your way around them, stabbing them, until you see the amount of damage go up.

 

I don't know if it is about it getting way harder based on where you are in the game or not.  It really depends on who/what you are fighting.  There are a lot of really tough undead, 90% of which are not necessary to fight, if you follow the main storyline.  There are plenty of golems and golem-like creatures in the mountains that are plenty tough- all of them can damage your armor and you can break your weapons on them if you aren't careful.  There are some areas with lots of archers that can really whittle you down. 

 

In regards to needing companions, it depends on your build.  As a thief character, I would recommend it.  You aren't going to be strong enough to fight lots of different things on your own and it will be slow and painful.  Depending on the type of technologist or magic user you played, it is possible to solo, for the most part, but still a good idea to have at least 1-2 other companions, to carry stuff (as it does have weight). 

 

Backstabbing?  No, the NPCs aren't smart enough for that.  You can't really manage their behavior when they are in combat, and that can be frustrating.  There are no scripts for them that you can select.  I have watched Virgil let himself get killed many times, when he has advanced healing spells and plenty of "mana", and just stand and keep fighting when he doesn't have plenty of mana and should be running away.  There are some commands you can issue in combat using the right click function on their portrait, but they aren't overly useful.  In regards to lock-picking or pick-pocketing, if you want to do it, you had best make your character good at it, because there are only a few NPCs which are capable, and it won't be a while until they are accessible (and none will pickpocket).

[good and bad from Arcanum]

Honestly, while I truly hope that PE and Torment are very successful, what I want is another steampunk RPG in the vein of Arcanum.  Not necessarily Victorian Age, but around there.  Maybe early 1900s ish.  Or, even better yet, sort of a mix of Fallout and Arcanum.  Basically, there was an apocalypse, and you have isolated communities struggling to survive.  There are enclaves of dwarves and human and gnomish technologists, as well as groups of elves and humans dedicated to magic.  Each blames the other for the chaos, and there are some deep-seated animosities alive in the world.  The orcs, half-orcs and half-ogres were all sort of caught in the middle.  Some remain essential slaves of many technologists, whereas others escaped and formed large warlord bans that hate the technologists (mostly humans, though by default, they have an inherent distrust of all technologists).  They don't love the elves or magic users either, but don't actively target them for raids or attacks when the opportunity presents itself.  Maybe there are a limited number of groups/areas where both magic users and technologists try to coexist, but it is a strained relationship...  That would be awesome.

[good and bad from Arcanum]

 

inspired by MCA's playthough, i recently started playing arcanum. things i like:

 

1. ppls' reaction varies based on your reputation, gender, race, magic/tech abilities, beauty, your clothing, etc. 

 

2. NPC's ability to resist spells (e.g., charm, stun) seems to be based on how various factors. 

 

3. item bonuses depend on your tech/magicka affinity

 

4. the dialog is generally good. 

 

5. companions have a variety of skills. i like that: you meet them in your travels, the number you can recruit is based on your charisma, and who you can recruit is based on your reputation (and your tech/magick alignment and some quests). i like that you can ask them to wait somewhere for you, recruit another follower, then later re-recruit the follower you'd ditched earlier. that's a big plus IMO.

 

magick vs tech

 

i like the idea of this: a world where the new forces of technology are battling the old forces of magicka. it creates an interesting world where two factions - neither of who are inherently good nor evil - have very conflicting interests. i also like the way it's implemented. you can do both but if you do, you'll never be as good at tech as someoene who doesn't use magicka. (ditto for magicka.)

 

 

OK: 

 

so far, the quests seem ok. they're neither particularly interesting nor horrible. 

 

i like the idea that there is economic, political, and racial conflict. but, so far at least, that's not really implemented in the game, except as NPC reactions to the player's race and the labor conflict in Tarant. it seems like a really good idea that needed to be fleshed out more in order to work well. 

 

 

don't like: 

 

1. the map and travel

 

2. combat. i usually used TB but i also tried RT. it's not good, even for an RPG. the only challenging fights i had were the monsters (levels 20 - 30 IIRC) at Liam's Workshop when i was at levels 5 - 16. (i was grinding bc i wanted to get teleport so i didn't have to deal with the map any more.) that was especially challenging because i hadn't remembered about the F5 key and often, after killing the one or two monsters i'd lured away, Virgil would go right to the portal and try to kill all the monsters there. "nooooooooooooo! i want you as a healbot, not a warrior! especially when we're outranked and outnumbered." 

 

even when the combat was challenging (mostly bc of Virgil's bad moves and my not realizing i could use the F5 key), it was more tedious than fun. 

 

3. the companions seem boring. so far, they don't have much personality or much of a story. 

 

4. training was instantaneous. really? i just pay you a few coins and suddenly i'm an apprentice? and, for many skills, there are several trainers in every town. very silly IMO. 

 

5. it's too easy to steal a shopkeeper's entire inventory. it's even worse that no one is supspicious of you the next day. e.g., i arrived in shrouded hills and cleaned out the entire inventory of every shopkeeper during the night. the next night, the inventory is full again (so i steal it all again) and no one in the town seems the least bit suspicious, even if i do that for 10 nights in a row. you'd think the town would be a bit more wary of a newcomer who happened to arrive just before all the stores were cleaned out each night. 

 

6. if you get caught pickpocketing or trying to steal (e.g., when breaking in), the target becomes immediately hostile and tries to kill you. further, i can't get my companion to distract them while i pickpocket them. those are common faults of RPGs but they're still a bad way to handle pickpocketing. 

 

 

Yeah, totally forgot that how you are dressed actually matters- being naked does not help, even if you are beautiful (though maybe if you were naked, beautiful, and had the background of attracting the other sex...)

 

I agree, the cultural/racial undertones could have been fleshed out a bit more.   But, in reality, there are lots of books you can find that talk about it.  There are a couple people in the university area that talk about it.  Some of the NPCs will also contribute to the discussion.  I actually feel it was really well done, especially as it was not a necessary component of the game, or what it was advertising itself on.

 

Almost everyone will say combat.  There are no combat feats or skills.  The reality is, it is extremely simplistic.  How much damage does your weapon do, do you have the stats necessary, have you been trained to get bonuses, and what is their corresponding stats and armor. 

 

Like I said, the companions don't have much going for them, outside of what you initially learn from them. A few will contribute advise here and there, but there is no inter-party banter or particularly interesting things to do with them after.  I feel they just didn't have enough time and resources to go and really make them what they could have. 

 

The thieving mechanic was both great and horrible, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.  Actually, there is a lot of talk about this very thing in one of the threads in the Mechanics section, about pickpocketing, with that type of issue being addressed.

 

On a separate note, while I'm not going to do it, an awesome build would be to go high charisma and persuasion and then make a master fighter character with the educator background.  With the educator background, you can train your companions to be apprentices and experts (one level of specialization below yours).  So, if you mastered melee and dodge, you could have every fighter in your party as an expert in those... and if you had a party of fighters, having 3-4 fighters that are experts would really help.  Or, you could hypothetically use it for a party of "thieves", so everyone would be an expert in prowling and backstab...

[good and bad from Arcanum]

I suppose.  Personally, I highly dislike the fact that you could not gain party members until you held equal level.  I understand the reasoning behind this, but given that the game is not, strictly speaking, linear, it is silly.  I mean, I think that is sort of what you were saying.  But, that being the case, in my experience, the majority are findable at some relatively low levels, so it isn't generally too hard to surmount that obstacle.  Because I was playing as a genius inventor fighter half-orc, I didn't want any followers unless they were also half-orc or technologists.  I kept Virgil around because he seemed like he would be useful, as my character is from another continent, and this guy has a vested interest in protecting me and seems reasonably street-wise, which is handy.  Other than that, didn't have an interest in other NPCs (or an ability to gain them).  But, with my smooth-talking commander sharp-shooter, if they had a pulse and were useful, I wanted them, as I was confident I could essentially dictate what they would do and so had a veritable army.  My elf mage only liked magic users or full or half elves.  So, as a result, I didn't have a huge party, though I could have had more had I wanted.  While most of the NPCs were not interesting after you gained them, I did appreciate that you could build the party that you wanted with what they offered. 

[good and bad from Arcanum]

I will just say that I am replaying Arcanum... again.   At this point, I have lost track of how many times I have replayed the game.  This is the first time I have actually tried to solo an RPG, and it is definitely working, with my brutishly strong, inventor half orc.  Soon, not only will I be a master of melee, but will also own an automaton to do my bidding- excellent.

[good and bad from Arcanum]

One random thing I just thought of, having recently played it a bit more- while it was irritating, to an extent, I liked that there were enemies which could actually damage your equipment.  Hit a rock golem with you sword, and you might end up breaking it.  Have a molten arachnid spit on you, and you could lose your armor.  That was awesome- never really seen a game do that before.

[good and bad from Arcanum]

Yeah, it was just really frustrating to see him trying to navigate around... lots of clicking and scrolling of the mouse.  I remember after the 1st one they released, someone mentioned him doing that as well, and specifically mentioned setting the waypoints.  Plus, there are only 2 types of clicks in the stealing/buying/moving items windows.  One results in instantly buying or attempting to steal the item, and with the other, you have to click and drag it into your inventory.  He apparently didn't know that, or forgot, and was quite irritated about having bought an item he didn't want, though apparently did not know why that happened.  I can only hope that will be the first and last time he does that.

 

So granted, one of the consistent complaints about the game was the map.  Personally, I really liked the map, and setting waypoints- that meant I knew where the party would end up going, and didn't have to hope they wouldn't go to the wrong place.  I just wish you could have set more.  I also liked that you could insta-buy/steal, as it saved time, having to click and drag.  But maybe that is just me...

[good and bad from Arcanum]

Well, this is a fairly old post, so here I am, bumping it. I feel it is appropriate after having had another update on Chris playing Arcanum... which actually made me pretty sad, because I am highly confident he didn't read anything (including the manual), before playing it (based off what little I watched in the last update).

[Update #61: In-game Art]

I suppose.  I mean, I would like shadows that "work" properly with the in-game light sources, because, well, that just makes sense.  But, as it is literally an intangible thing that effects nothing in game, I don't really care.  The IE games didn't have shadows, I am pretty sure- or at least, not dynamic ones.  If they can fix the shadows to do what they are supposed to/should, excellent. 

[Update #61: In-game Art]

It just amazes me how much people are nit-picking the type and quality of shadow...  I didn't even notice most of the complaints against it until I referenced the posts pointing it out.  To me, that seems close to the least important feature- the important thing is that the environment looks great and that the character models look great also...

[Update #61: In-game Art]

Me gusta mucho... Seriously, looks great. It is obvious that the adventure party has raided this specific dungeon because they all want sweet masks for either Mardi Gras or a masquerade...

 

On a separate note, I would really like these Avellone updates in text. I don't care about watching him play for an hour, I just want to know what he thought of that hour of play, like, "Liked how I had 3 options for how I would do __", "Thought this was poorly implemented, but would do this __", etc. I don't care that he is playing it, I want to know his opinion of it as a game designer and what things he would like to see in Project Eternity...

[Mechanic Revision - Pickpocketing]

Just as a gentle reminder on the root matter of the topic, pickpocketing is not necessarily something that all players find 'enticing'. Indeed, when I saw the title for this thread, my first thought was 'Ah, that'll be a topic about getting rid of that pointless skill, I'll go and offer my support for that'. I was very surprised to find out it was going in completely the opposite direction.

 

Frankly, and this could be considered pretty poor form, I've done an awful lot of tldnr in this thread. The only reason I'm here is just to remind devs that while pickpocketing could evidently use a serious overhaul, there's a very good chance many of us would continue to ignore it. In any game where my hand hasn't been forced, I have never put a single point into that skill, and despite the passion of the thread's other contributors I feel I am hardly alone.

 

So that's not so say the ideas within are bad, just that should they prove costly to implement they might not be worth it.

I don't know that the "majority opinion" is, but I sincerely doubt that the majority of players don't use thieves, especially to steal when it is possible and worthwhile.  The 3 base classes were fighter, thief, and mage.  In my experience, people tend to have their preferences, but tend to play some variation of each of those for a playthrough.  My least favorite is a "rogue", because they generally aren't that great in combat.  That being said, I very much enjoyed my assassin in BG2, which had boots of speed and infravision, that would run around slaughtering people one by one, by hiding (using potions of invisibility as well) and then luring them off or attacking right in their midst.  Even when I had my paladin character, I justified my thief's stealing as a necessary evil, because I was not able to secure enough funds to be properly outfitted to fight evil, which was the higher priority.  I could save more people being better outfitted and made large donations to the various churches (mine especially, of course).  In Arcanum and Fallout, I stole like a boss, because it was hard to come by lots of things any other way.  In DAO, thievery was useless, so I stopped playing my thief character. 

[Mechanic Revision - Pickpocketing]

I am really hoping that the developers read this thread, as there are a lot of good ideas here.  It is seriously an important element, which is often done poorly.  I understand there would be tons of scripting and writing necessary to incorporate some of these ideas, but I would personally rather have an excellent "thieving system" than a 15 level dungeon...  15?!?!?   Really?  Considering they didn't even make 15 level castles, it just seems ridiculous.  I remember Watcher's Tower from BG 2, and even that seemed a bit overboard... and most levels were rather small.  I can personally say, that chances are, I won't go beyond a few levels of this dungeon, because I don't like senseless grinding and unless it is incorporated into the main storyline, won't be motivated to go there... And I hope it isn't, because I don't want Temple of Elemental Evil all over again.  I just can't imagine my character thinking, "Well, a mass civil war/inception of great destruction/my death/__ looms on the near horizon, but I'm going to spend the next several months trying to clear out this dungeon, because there are ancient treasures here..."

 

Back on topic, I completely agree that failing should not automatically result in EVERY NPC trying to attack you (including random children), that there should be a degree of ambiguity about it (not a menu of items, as your character likely does not have x-ray vision, though maybe a Cipher thief might not be a bad idea...), that there should be different ways of initiating stealing from an individual, and that it should get more difficult over time, based on how many times that individual has been stolen from/or the value, or the how many times you have stolen from people in that area in general (and/or the cumulative value).  For instance, if you have been stealing from everyone's coinpurses, maybe there are more guards in the streets.  If you steal from merchants, maybe there are more guards inside shops.  If you steal from both, more guards everywhere, and general paranoia and rewards out to catch the thieves responsible- maybe it creates a storyline in and of itself, because you have stolen so much.  That would be interesting.

 

So I am going to randomly write their names, in the event that they actually keep track of threads/posts that mention them... Chris Avellone, Josh Sawyer, Tim Cain, Feargus Urquhart, Chris Parker

[Mechanic Revision - Pickpocketing]

I really like the majority of that.  But they have already said that you won't level based on your use of a skill, so that is a moot point.  I think that the restriction of 1 single opportunity is silly.  Maybe there are conditions, like, how many times you have stolen from them (meaning, regardless of your skill, they have inherently become more wary of being stolen from, and might even suspect you, thus, making it harder to steal from them further), WHAT you have stolen from them (You steal 10 gp occassionally, not too important to them, if they are a noble- maybe they don't even notice.  But you steal their signet ring, and thereafter, they are EXTREMELY wary of thieves), HOW you steal from them (you initiate it during conversation, they will automatically suspect you after, you do it by stealth, they have no idea you were connected, you don't use stealth, but do steal from them, they have a slight idea it might have been you). 

 

I think that system would be far better.  Maybe you can't learn about certain really high value items without initiating conversation or having someone else tell you about them (like a thieves' guild, a friend/enemy, themselves, etc).  For example, you wouldn't know about their highly powerful charm they always keep in their breastpocket unless you somehow found out about it.  You could steal their ring, or from their purse, because, as a thief, you will naturally be looking there.  But you aren't likely to be feeling them up so you can locate items in less common places on their body or in their clothes....

[Which games have the best companions. What makes them good?]

I go with BG 2, having even rececently completed Torment.  Torment's characters were good, and interesting, but I just didn't feel any of them "evolved" during the course of the game.  You came to understand them better, and why they were with you, but they didn't actually change in any way.  And unlike in BG, with one notable exception, they didn't have their own storylines after they joined, they just became part of your party.  While there was party banter, it was fairly limited and moderately annoying- lots of Morte hitting on either Falls or Anna, or them making fun of him.  I don't think Dakkon ever said anything.  Ignus would just go on about burning.  Nordom was great, but as an Easter Egg of sorts, I never would have gotten him if I hadn't read through some walkthroughs explaining how to. 

 

I like that in BG 2, you can literally shape how they think.  You can make them more realistic/pragmatic in their worldview, more optimistic/open minded, etc.  Plus, everyone interacted with everyone else.  Also, I just liked the characters more.  Torment was meant to be "different", in the setting, the type of characters, all that.  But, that being said, the only character that I was even remotely concerned about was Falls.  I almost could have for Anna, but she was actually kind of annoying, and the cruddy Irishish accent just irritated me- and I like Irish accents.  Comparatively, I liked lots of the characters in BG 2, and actually cared about what happened to them. 

 

I really liked the characters in KOTOR 2, for much of the same reasons.  That being said, because it wasn't a permanent party configuration, I feel that made the connections less strong.  It wasn't like- "Okay, here we go team!"  It was, "Ok, which team for this mission?"  That is different.  Not, how can I get what I have to work, but, "Well, Atton will likely be better for this than __, so I will bring him."  Same difference with ME.  Plus, the interactions in ME were just so much more pedestrian- usually not about anything important, but more, "How are you feeling?", "I'm sorry this upset you", and "Wow, you are so beautiful and special". 

[RPG Codex Interviews George Ziets]

I must say, though I have pretty consistently enjoyed the interviews with Sawyer and Avellone, this was undoubtedly my favorite RPG game maker interview I have read... I look forward to seeing what he can do when he has more experience and clout in the future.

[good and bad from Arcanum]

Well, my favorite thing was just the general idea of magic vs. technology, as well as the manual that went into great details explaining how magic interferes with technology (stylized as 19th century scientific papers - brilliant).

 

As for things I liked about it that would be good in any RPG: My favorite would be the importance of race, not only for your main character but for NPCs too. But it's a tricky one. I love Arcanum for all that it was *trying* to do.

 

Yeah, I don´t think it was perfect by any means, but I really enjoyed everything that was attempted with it. I think it got some mechanics down really well, whereas others were obviously not as good.

[Sawyerism Distilled - an interview with Josh Sawyer at Iron Tower Studio]

Yeah, we'll see how that goes. I don't want it to be an insta-win, but I do like having my eloquent/passionate/compelling speaker characters. I mean, I played 2 different types during F:NV. One was just really smart, so his dialogue was intelligent, probing, and discerning, whereas my charismatic speaker was more emotive and just passionate. As I understand it, there will be combat skills and non-combat, which will be split and each get points. If that is the case, there should certainly be speech skills. I mean, if you can choose to put skills in gambling, lock-picking, "lore", whatever, you should be able to do the same with different speech skills, since you are accepting corresponding "weaknesses" by not getting other skills which might be more concretely useful.

[Sawyerism Distilled - an interview with Josh Sawyer at Iron Tower Studio]

 

snip

 

I don't think it would be a very exciting tale if someone kept healing every single cut that another character took.

 

"He fought valiantly against the evil lord Melavath, who kept wounding him and wounding him. But, lo, the healer Azreiar did keep undoing that which the evil lord had done, immediately after each blow had been dealt. But would her mana pool last longer than the dark lord's health pool? The tension was menacingly thick!"

 

The only tactical consideration that provides is "Take out the healer first!" for the attackers, and "protect the healer or we're all dead!" for the defenders. That's really about as silly as "Keep the Warrior healed, or we'll lose our damage dealer!"

 

So, "Have our knight run over there to shield block that axe blow" or "Have our healer undo the hit point loss from that axe blow regardless of how we worry about dealing with it!"... which is a more tactical decision, I ask.

 

Yes, I like this. It actually explains one of the things I didn't like about the IE games, when I really think of it. I hated having to attempt to heal someone in the middle of combat. It just seems so contrived- like swalling 4 healing potions in rapid succession in the middle of a fight. I don't know if I like Josh's thoughts on the speech stuff (since I like speech skills), but I like their decision to redo this dynamic. Seems like it would make combat more exciting, and it even "makes sense". I mean, mostly, it does come down to endurance. A guy gets hit enough with blunt objects, he gases. He gets cut, he tires from blood loss (provided we aren't talking amputations). This system doesn't remove the possibility of critical strikes- if a blow completely exhausts endurance and is powerful enough, it could hypothetically wipe someone's health out as well. I like it.