Hormalakh

really? why? Well it really depends on how we define the word class. What dos class really mean? Is it a combat style? A set of skills put together? A way of life? No other class is as narrowly described as the monk. It is the only one that is described both as a cultural phenomenon, a specific combat style, and a way of life. "Tibetan monks" that defend their homes using kung-fu is not a class. If we look at it from the lens of combat style, the class truly being described is a brawler/fighter. Monks are chosen as a class because they fight without weapons and use only "martial arts." Rogues aren't described this way (fights with daggers?), neither are rangers (fights with bows?), barbarians (fights with ... axes?) How is that any different than a boxer, or other type of martial artist? Why not just call them brawlers? The "monk class" also describes a certain personality that no other class truly does; that of an ascetic. Fighters aren't defined by their personalities. Rogues might be thieves, but not always. Etc, etc. And classes being defined as skill sets: barbarians rage, fighters are combat oriented, rogues mechaincally oriented, wizards magically oriented. What about monks? They're kung-fu oriented? Why not call them brawlers then? It's too awkward of a distinction between the monk and any of the other classes. We all quickly "get" what each class is and can think of a variety of ways to play those classes. With a variety of different personalities and motivations. Monks, though. It's hard to distinguish them and articulate them other than by considering them as a stereotypical generalization. They aren't just a class. Monks are the product of a philosophy fit into a combat style within a specific culture. No other class really is. It's difficult to articulate really. I'd have to sit and define class first. Then sketch out each class to fit within this definition and see how I can distinguish them. Then I would have to sit and think about monks as they fit within this class. From a distance, it just seems that monks are the most narrowly defined class, whereas other classes can play to a wider audience. It's really difficult to articulate. I just hope the devs think these distinctions through well enough and utilize one definition for the word "class" and define their classes by distinguishing between them through that lens. D&D, because it is a game that has evolved through each new edition has had its definitions diluted, corrupted and sometimes made backward-incompatible, has made convoluted descriptions that are difficult to understand. When starting a completely new IP and gameworld, we do not have to work with these adulterated definitions. We should be clear about what we mean. Edit: clarity

The more I think about it, the more I start to hate the fact that monks exist as a class in this game.

I'm with you! Let me go take off my fur miniskirt.

Haha. Yes I came to the same conclusion that it'd be a lot to think about. But crafting in itself is a lot to think about, what is the most effective method? Copying all the other crafting systems out there and make it a trade? Or an ability that you need in combat situations? Hard-locked to locations? (Kingdoms of Amalur has alchemist sets at houses, and a blacksmith you can go to). The only thing I disliked about KoA was that I had 20 items I couldn't use because I was constantly missing 1 component. I haven't gotten very far in Arcanum but I felt it likewise there, I imagine the same thing happening for me in that game. Dang man you were just playing BG1 last week. You're going through all the games aren't you? I don't know much about KoA, but yeah I had something of a similar feeling with Arcanum. I want components to be reusable for different items. Saltpeter is like that in Arcanum, it is very useful for a lot of explosive items.

lol yeah they do. I thought he was talking about Wasteland 1/2 at first, but apparently no.

Interesting idea. I would consider wizards as enchanters "crafting magic." Fighters perhaps as weapon/armor repairers. Rogues as alchemists. Rangers as ammo crafting.... well the more I write these out, the more I realize there really shouldn't be crafting skills tied to any particular class except for perhaps "thematically tied crafting" like poisons for rogues, and enchanting for wizards. I'm not sure. This should probably be thought through though (thot thru tho).

Don't worry; they've already said that "maturty does not always equal being serious" and there will be humorous bits in the game. This was excellent. Thank you for sharing. You're welcome I really recommend everyone to watch the Extra Credits videos. Some of them are a little contrived at parts, but there's a lot of interesting commentary there.

As someone who quotes Kerghan, I have respect for you already But yeah, I agree. I don't necessarily care much to force "difficult" battles on other players, but I would like a variety of AI for the enemy, just so players have to think more than trying the same old strategy over and over again during combat. Combat isn't supposed to be grindy in this game, so it'll be nice to try more AIs.

Fixed it for you. Regardless of what you think you are, you still have prejudices and biases like everyone else in the world. This isn't a medieval simulator. Why don't you have issues with Sagani then? She's not "European." Whether people like it or not, the world will continue to be diverse and multiculturalism will continue to occur. Deal with it. To continue to think of our fantasy worlds as "white-only" worlds and to decry worlds that do not fit this model to be "immersion breaking" is just another way to be neo-racist. Medieval Europe, which this game isn't, wasn't filled with only "white people." Renaissance Europe had plenty of mixing with Middle Eastern/Asian/African cultures, and diverse people lived in those locales. People of different colors traveled the world then, and they travel the world now. ---------------- In regards to Forton and his being a monk and how he looks, this argument really stems into how we see "monks" as a class. There was a thread several weeks ago where this was discussed and people came to all sorts of different conclusions. It was weird for most people to describe any class based solely on one narrow interpretation of the word monk. I think a lot of the disagreement with Forton still stems from that.

Abstraction isn't a by-product of computer processing power. It has to do with what we as players/devs think is important in making the game fun, interesting, or unique. Abstractions are quite common in all aspects of play (and even in other parts of life) and as long as they don't take the player out of the immersive feeling, then they shouldn't really make much of a difference. Would you be OK with your fighters being able to backstab/sneak attack as a bonus, but your rogues being able to get a higher bonus if they did a backstab/sneak attack? If not, why? How is it any less of an abstraction to think of "fighters" (which is in itself an abstraction - we don't really classify anyone in the world as either a fighter or a rogue) as those able to deal the most damage? Wizards can deal high amounts of damage. So can barbarians. Yet, we don't have problems with them and don't think of them as "DPS lame-os." Those classes are also abstractions. This does not mean that the thief will necessarily do more damage with a dagger than what a sword would do (absolute increase in damage), but there is a bonus there that increases the damage relatively higher for a rogue than a fighter. A thief wielding a dagger might do 1-4 damage, but 5-10 backstab damage. While a fighter holding a sword might do 1-10 damage, while backstabbing can cause 3-14 damage.

I think what everyone is trying to convey here is that we all wish for an engaging narrative, one filled with human thoughts and emotions. We wish to be able to identify with our characters and the story and to come away from it knowing something more about ourselves. Sometimes an engaging narrative uses "melodrama," and sometimes it is done with a well-written dialogue tree. In any case, the story must be gripping and engaging. "How to show narrative through game mechanics" "Games enriching lives" "Game mechanics as a metaphor" - Very interesting take

Following along in this discussion, I'd really like different enemies to have varying levels of AI, dependent upon a stat like their intelligence. I don't mind pulling or kiting one or two enemy types, but I don't want it to be a playstyle for the whole game. Similarly, I don' think anyone here would disagree that having varying levels of difficulty when dealing with enemies can always be fun. Having to change strategies because of a different AI is fun.

I would actually like to see the rogue as being the one who is detected with difficulty during a battle. The rogue should be able to stay in shadows during combat to be most effective, regardless of how the actual damage is dealt over time. Perhaps instead of actually damaging opponents, they can be best utilized as enemy disablers, in that they can poison or sap enemies out of battle. They would be a good class in disabling that lone patrolling orc before it calls its friends to battle. -------------- How about making the rogue's possible skill sets wider in depth AND range? What else can rogues do other than backstab, sneak attack? Sap. Poison. Disable. Set traps. Etc. These are all combat capabilities and perhaps thieves could either know a little about all of them (jack of all trades) or specialize in a certain rogue-field. Poison master. Assasin (sneakattack master). Traps Master. Sapper. ----------------- This idea that because in real-life everyone can perform a "sneak-attack" or climb or do any other action while certain classes are locked out is, as I said before, an abstraction. The point is that certain classes should become masters in these skills and are more focused on these aspects. Perhaps a fighter can bacakstab enemies, but maybe rogues have spent a lifetime working on the best methods used in backstabbing people. These are as I've said before, abstractions of a relaity, to make the players quickly understand the skills specialized by any certain class. While I understand the argument that melee fighters are masters in combat, perhaps it can be explained that most fighter training emphasizes fighting your enemies as they face you; while fighters can get a limited bonus to attacking from behind, the rogue has mastered his fighting techniques as those that rely mainly on attacking from behind/shadows. Thus they get a higher bonus to these "backstabs." Just some thoughts....

There has got to be a way to show magic effects without cluttering up the screen, somehow... because I also don't like the constant cluttering of the screen. The design people have got to know of innovative ways to deal with this. Make it beautiful, but make it visible so that it actually performs well on its dual roles of being aesthetically pleasing and providing tactical information.

Heh. While I do appreciate the humor behind this comment, I did want to make a point. There are a lot of things that Obsidian can do to make this a "good game." The features in making this game "good" are innumerable, but there are certain features that matter more to players than other features. I think it's important for players to describe what features and aspects are most important to them and how deep and complex these features should be, so that the devs know what our expectations are and take what they may from any suggestions that they find promising. In regards to many of the suggestions that I've made in the boards, I've always tried to consider that any game created can always be made "better" with an unlimited budget and time. But because we live in the real world with limits on these two, there should be some features that are more important than others. As such, I have tried to articulate my own understandings of what makes RPGs "better games," and also to give a few examples to clarify. I haven't always been successful, but I try to articulate what my understanding of "better" is in these types of games and hope that the devs take notice and consider these points. Of course, I never assume that my posts are read and that they will absolutely be implemented in the game. Perhaps, they serve as starting points for a more valuable discussion, or they spark an innovative idea that Obsidian has never considered. We all want the best game out there. But, as is obvious by the varied topics in this forum, some things are just more important than others. Vague terms like "cool", "good", or "bad" don't really help illustrate what we find enjoyable in these experiences and being able to communicate what we hold to be important helps the devs in creating a more enjoyable experience. Edit: Clarity.

Another way to vary up tactics would be to bring in positioning into the equation. Perhaps some enemy attacks are stronger when the party is dispersed (some sort of hurricane-type area of effect with a eye of the storm where no damage occurs - thus you want to bunch up your party into a small tight group) or when tightly grouped (AOE spells). I think the point is just to think about combat mechanics already in place in the game and to utilize those as sort of "puzzle-type" scenarios where you can be effective (although less so) by just attacking groups willy-nilly, or you can be more effective utilizing dynamic strategies. By "Dynamic Strategies," I mean those strategies that involve making real-time, in-battle decisions (how to position party members, what spells to use, special combat-type skills, who to focus first) as opposed to static strategies, where all you do is equip the right armor and weapon and hope for the best whilst spamming massive damage spells and high DPS ranged weapons. Use the combat skills given to classes and build enemy types that take these skills into account. We had a lot of the beginnings of this in BG2 (and I have no experience with IWD, so it might be case that this was considered there), with turning "undead", focusing mages, etc, but the AIs of enemies could have used a bit more work and enemies could have varied their attack routines as well (every mage always did the same thing, their spellbooks only differed).

I concur and I think different enemies having different strategies would also help in this regard. I would like to have to think about how to defeat a certain group of enemies. Here are some examples. 1- Have an enemy that while weak individually, likes to attack parties in hordes. While each enemy might be easy when fighting them off one by one, there are just way too many to handle at an individual basis. These sort of enemies require AOE effect weapons, spells or tactics. 2- Have an enemy that while lumbering slowly towards your party, would absolutely destroy each member if you got in too close. Thus, havin to defeat this enemy would require ranged battle, and perhaps some kiting strategy. 3- Have an enemy which summons other fallen enemies quickly and so it becomes a tactical choice as to whether you should focus on killing the summoner or the summoned. 4- Have enemies that call out to nearby camps if they detect your party. Thus the best way to defeat these enemies is to quickly dispatch them with a thief. And so on and so forth.

I want more than anything else, not variety in the numbers of my enemies, but variety in the strategies my enemies utilize and thus the number of strategies that I have to utilize. I don't want to be able to win every single fight the same way (fireball, fireball, and fireball, then send in melees to crush). I'd like certain enemies to be more viable against pulling and kiting, while others don't fall for those tactics. I'd like some enemies to make me have to think about what strategies would work best and what tools I'd need to handle these enemies. Be it a horde of goblins or an adventuring party.

thx for this.

You know nothing about the character other than what he looks, and in a concept sketch at that. How can you say anything at all?

Here's another video from Extra Credits and it talks about the Uncanny Valley. While the UV is specific to the characters in games, I think it can also relate to the "character" of the scenes and how they are portrayed in games. http://extra-credits.net/episodes/uncanny-valley/ I've become an EC fanboy. Oh God....

I hope that you will be pleasantly surprised. Do remember that they are changing some of the aspects of the old games. The party for example will be in 3D as opposed to 2D sprites. Some of the objects will also be 3D props. Without a doubt, the quality and resolution of these games will be improved and the images (as evidenced from the screenshot) will look more beautiful than ever before. Now as for UI, I don't think we've really heard what they're doing with it and this is one place where I completely agree with you. Look at my signature for example. I think part of the problem was the clunkiness found in older games. I would like to believe that just as they are revisiting the game mechanics of the older games that have inspired PE and tweaking them, they are planning on doing the same with other elements as well, UI included. After all, they've been doing this for a while and have seen what works and what doesn't in different games. Without a doubt, when some mechanic advancement comes along and changes how players play those games, the developers of those games see that and realize how much better their older games would have been with this newer mechanic. I think you'll find that this game might likely do the same thing. The visual style and gaming style might be nostalgic, but the mechanics and its presentation wouldn't be as "clunky" as it was before. At least, that's what I think everyone here hopes.

found this to be interesting... http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-pre-production-problem if you haven't noticed by my activity throughout the boards. i'm watching all of these and posting them where they're relevant. I thnik they're awesome and definitely encourage others who are interested in watching them.

Yeah kiting is nice. I meant pulling. One vs six bash-em ups suck.

You assumed correctly my feline-fancying friend. And I'd agree with you, perhaps differentiating between enemies that do "call out" to nearby enemies and those that don't and having a mix of the two would be nice. Enemy AI should definitely be a well-programmed beast in either case. I plan on playing (and replaying) this game until I turn 60. Just like I will with the other IE games.