Hormalakh

Per Sawyer, there is a little zooming functionality. You can zoom out, but not zoom in past a limit. Can't find source right now, but I'm absolutely 100% sure he said this. No in-game camera rotation.

1000 gp is low IMO. Make it 200000 gp to start.

1- I paid for the game to get the highest resolution of the image. Why do I have to go to a secondary site to get that image? That's ridiculous. 2- This shouldn't be that hard of a fix. 3- Other people (like me) don't know Gamebanshee has this sort of thing. Are we going to say in-game "If you want the full image for your viewing pleasure, please check out Gamebanshee?" 4- I like to be able to sit back and view the image while playing. Sometimes its good to be an atmosphere-nerd once in a while. Especially if the art is good. 5- I have to wait for the Gamebanshee nerds to actually finish the game before I can get this? No thanks.

I really don't see what your comments have to do with rests and health/stamina, Dream.

But a clairvoyance is even easier to use. A "map" that you could purchase after running through the map would be nice for those of us interested in the art for art's sake.

I, on the other hand, would. I like the art.

All very good points and I'm glad you mentioned them. I do agree with you that some of this "poor play" can be due to laziness. Probably not all of it. In any case, thanks. As for 10 minute buffs, I was exaggerating, as I'm sure you could tell. I really don't have a good response to your post otherwise.

Just wanted to commend you on keeping up with the forum. Thanks.

Some people just can't read well.

hmm no... that's weird.

Well, alright. I'm glad I didn't waste my time on this yesterday.

You're getting closer. I don't want developers to beat us over the head with "HEY THIS IS THE WAY YOU DO IT." But, it would be nice for those who don't know to get a *gentle* (and I mean gentle) nudge in the right direction. I don't want tactical combat to be completely explained to the players: they need to figure it out. But put them on the right track. For example, show them that buffs work. Then they've got to figure out which buffs to use.

Forgot about this thread. Now where was I? I don't have a problem with either the Charisma or the speech skill, although I can see where Josh Sawyer is coming from. Usually Charisma and speech are employed for the same job: dialogue. Sometimes Charisma is used for other things like party limits, or barter, but usually, the Charisma boils down to a "speech skill check." I can see what you're saying about the Charisma stat and I would agree. I'm not sure what Josh is going to do about the "Charisma" attribute. I did point to an example where I think would work with both a Charisma attribute and a speech skill. See my previous posts on this thread. I think it's page 11. I wonder if our attributes will be completely different. Josh says His point also comes from another thing that he said, I believe that when playing against a computer, when mechanics are not in place to reward "role-play", then we have games that we are making up. We're playing with dolls and puppets in our minds. This isn't necessarily wrong, and people can do that. But there are the other group of players who think that "LARPing" in a computer game is innane. I tend to agree with them. Here is my source for the JESawyer quotes. http://forums.someth...40&pagenumber=6 PS. I could be completely incorrect in my views from where Josh is standing. I'll let him speak for himself - but these are the ideas that came to my mind when I read his words.

I actually appreciate that games like IWD "forced" the player to use buffs. I've never played but seeing as how Josh thought it would be pretty necessary to use buffs in certain parts, it makes buffs seem that much more useful.

This is why I knew Justin Bell was the man for the job. You are obviously a technical expert on sound as opposed to writing music "because it sounds cool." One thing that comes to mind is the sounds that come with the click of a button: specifically the turning of pages in games. Oftentimes, you'll be flipping through a book, and each page gets a "fwip." I'm not sure if that annoys people, but if I keep hearing "fwi fwi fwi fwi fwi fwi fwip." It gets a little annoying... Which was why the Vampire: the Masquerade was odd...when he picked up the newspaper, I was imagining I'd hear a "paper sound." But I didn't. It was ... odd...

^I can agree with that. Or the obnoxious multicolored rainbow thing. It's nice for the first few seconds, but after that, it get's annoying. Except how do you convey the buffs on a character without them? You can't stuff everything on a portrait.

Should non-mages be able to "cast" buffs though? You got barbarian's rage/chanters songs/paladin's "suck it up!". Obviously druids, priests, wizards will have it. What about fighters,monks? I'd like to see some buffs against ciphers. Or some cipher-based buffs.

You guys out in Croatia should take some pictures! Send them over to Obsidian!

TY. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62972-buffing-your-party/

Buffing your party: what's awesome about it? What's not? Go! I'll start. I don't really like having to spend 10 minutes buffing my party. It takes away from the action. There's gotta be other ways ot making buffs "tactical."

Or Fuldir's Gate: Shadows of Bahmn. Such tripe

I'm trying to keep away from using specific examples in this thread guys, because ultimately "buffing" was only an example used to discuss high-level design. Please try to stay o/t.

Apparently the Priest class is more the "paladin" of old, and the paladin is more "Warlord." Just thought you guys should know. Stamina healing can be done by several different classes now. Priests, Paladins, Barbarians, etc.

Or that building your single player game around the top .1 percent of players, is probably not a good idea. Having a mode for that kind of group is all well and good, but making it difficult, or impossible, for majority of players to be able to get passed specific segments without brute forcing, or out right cheating is not. ... What I'm trying to say is that the Developer shouldn't build the game around what he considers the most twinked out party there is, but around the fact that every player will have a different approach to the combat. It won't always be easier going one way or an other, but it should always be possible. There should be no sun laser I have to make to get passed any single part. Actually I'm sort of saying the opposite. I'm saying build your game around the 0.1% but give the 99.9% of other players an opportunity either in the manual or in the game to learn the basic concepts of the game. For those who don't read the manual, then seriously, that's their fault. This game is meant to be for people who want to read: it has dialogue that you need to read! If the game is built around a twinked out party with a specific sequence to be followed, give those players who don't realize that (and you will see this in game-testing) some sort of resource to realize it. Give them the first steps toward the path you think would work. Obviously, some players will find their own way. Others will build upon the beginning steps and learn. I'm afraid that a lot of what I'm saying here can be misconstrued as "let's dumb down the game for 'poorer' players" but that's not my intent at all. My intent is to have games made for experts, but to give the non-experts resources manual/in-game to become experts. Josh Sawyer wrote on the SA forums a while back, But what to do? I mean Sawyer says its not beneficial to him or the player. But what if his design of the game around that player, breaks it for all his other players? I've been thinking about this from last night and how not utilizing the manual really should be grounds for "don't give a poo poo." At the end of the day, it didn't really affect me: I was able to figure out most of the rest of the stuff myself (minus a few things). But playing PnP did make BG2 a richer experience (there are actually things called Drow and people play this stuff in RL!? I wonder if all that stuff Haer D'alis was saying could actually make sense? What's this "Planescape?" OMG) I think that players who do have a half-decent manual have a lot going for them, and those who don't use it, are ultimately losing out not because the developers did anything wrong. If they don't RTM, then that's their fault. Devs shouldn't design for them. But if certain concepts and topics don't make sense to a majority of your players (those that actually RTM) then there is something wrong with the way you wrote it. You figure out what doesn't make sense by play-testing and noticing where people are tripping up. Either we let the newer players in on a few secrets, and still watch them struggle, or we leave them out there alone and rage-quitting. I'm not saying make the game easy or simple; just keep in mind not everyone is an expert. Well-written manuals are only one step towards informing your players. Yep, basically. People fall into mindsets from the previous games they've played. Ultimately, I see a good video game like a good book. It should challenge my mind and engage me. I'm not looking for a trashy romance novel, I'm looking for the next classical masterpiece. @Wirdjos I've been there man. It happens

@coffeetable The game design philosophy of Josh Sawyer, yes.