Hormalakh

I loved Arcanum too, enough to replay the whole thing again. I do believe that some of his criticism is valid. There isn't enough depth to companions, the world can sometimes seem too daunting, magic can seem overpowered (although I've always played as a technologist). It's a great game and I really think it's one of those games that gets better the more you replay it, especially for the cRPG connoisseur. Edit: Wanted to use the word connoisseur.

Err pulling. Yes. Kiting is something else isn't it? You darn kids with your gaming lingo. Can't ever get it right... (feels like a whatchamacallit "noob")

err... just bits and pieces from different interviews. http://shadeheart.co...th-josh-sawyer/ has a bit of it. Honestly, can't point you to anything specific but it's been mentioned why. There were several reasons, one of them being money. Another had to do with the "strategy of seeing the battlefield". Third was the ability to easily control a party of characters in this way (think RTS games). But I didn't see money as the defining reason. Edit: Technical limitations were also a factor if I remember. The art shown thus far has been beautiful in any case. I actually like the stylistic choice of a cav-obq perspective without a rotatable camera. It allows for interesting game mechanics and gives the areas a sense of awe. Look back to the screenshot they showed. It's as if the eyes are directed immediately to what matters most and then you can spend your time looking at all the beautiful hand-crafted detail found throughout the shot. It's like a beautiful work of art. I would never dare ask Picasso why he chose cubism as his art perspective. Similarly, while they could have used a whole lot of other perspectives, I don't think that there was only one reason as to why they chose CO, but I'm glad they did.

Yeah as someone who absolutely loves BG2 and backed this game because of that game, I would have to say I thought BG1 was mediocre at best. I only played it once just to understand why my character is who he/she is and the background of some of my companions. Otherwise, yep. BG1. Felt much the same way you did. In other news, I have got to play PST. Edit: Turned down the hyperbole.

Thus you've already understood why that style was used. The game was for younger audiences. The style fit the audience. The style used in IE games while we have greater technical opporunities fits the reasoning behind why OEI is using the cav-oblique style. It fits the game best. There has been a lot said about why they have used cav-obq for this game and it would behoove you to go and read up on it.

Except I want you to think about which one sticks in your mind longer and brings something more to the game. The point wasn't that it "looks better" because "DUH Graphics" but rather that the style and aesthetic actually fits the game. Beastrider looks exactly like every other graphically intense game I've played and it's all brown to boot. You're telling me shiny brown turds look nicer than less shiny colorful balls? I would disagree. Some of the best games in the past have been 8-bit games and people enjoyed the games for what they were not how they looked. We're now reaching a point in gaming where making specific stylistic choices are less due to technical reasons than they are for artistic ones. Style matters.

http://www.penny-arc...-vs.-aesthetics watch this and you'll better understand. BG2 is also mentioned.

In many of the older IE games that I played (haven't played the IWD series) much of my strategy involved kiting single enemies and picking them off one by one. This was especially effective against enemies like Beholders and illithid (BG2). Then I played these games again and with mods that let the enemies "call out" to their allies to come and help them in battle. It made the battles much more interesting and challenging and I ended up having to rethink strategies against enemies, because ultimately kiting was a cheap way to win. It also brings up a possible game mechanic and strategy for rogues (see Gameplay and Mechanics forum for the Rogue discussion) as quickly disabling (unconscious, kill, etc) patrolling enemies before they have a chance to call out to enemies becomes an interesting role that rogues can play. So I just wanted to articulate my hope and dream that the P:E game will think about implementing a game mechanic to NOT allow us to kite enemies one by one and that to do so would risk a "call to nearby enemies" for them to follow the sole enemy that spotted my party to the area where they were last spotted. Don't let kiting be a play-style. It's weaksauce.

Ever play BG2? I think that was much much better than BG1. I didn't much like BG1 myself and although I've played both 1 and 2 at one point. BG2 is the game I've played at least 3 (or maybe 4 times) fully.

suorce?

I have tried to read most of the conversation for the past eleven pages, and I tend to agree that I wouldn't want a rogue that is a consistent heavy-hitter during battles as I would delegate that responsibility to fighters. The occasional sneak attack is fine with me, and I generally use my rogues' out-of-combat abilities much more than I do in-combat. Usually, unless they are assassin-kitted, they are ranged lower DPS combatants. I did want to mention that these arguments about game mechanics having to FULLY correlate with realism is something I don't agree with. These ideas are abstractions and as such are meant to help guide players into better understanding their mechanics quickly; a class is only good in that it quickly identifies what that character's skill-sets are and nothing more. Classes are meant to relay a theme to the character's personality and skills. A rogue, like any adventurer worth his salt, should be able to fight, but it's how he takes down his opponents that matter. The over-all theme that the rogue utilizes is that of someone in the shadows. I guess Batman would be a good example to think about. Do you consider Batman a fighter or a rogue? Why? The abilities of Batman under a general theme would "class" Batman as either a fighter or a rogue, and maybe that would depend on how you'd like to portray him. Perhaps, he's both. But if you were to choose one, which would it be?

Diablo is an Action RPG.... I don't consider DA:O a classic. It needs to weather the test of time for a few more years.

I think depth is always a good thing, but having clunky mechanics that don't fit the gameplay and story can break narrative immersion. It's important to have something that is both fun and useful and something that a majority of the players will utilize. Why make it a stretch goal if less than half the people are going to use it. That's bad game design.

Do any of you guys ever come back and read what you write and just feel embarrassed? I'm just wondering, because sometimes some of these posts remind me of why I can't be known for playing video games.

Who's Chuck Norris?

I find that history majors (one of my friends being one) look at the world and think very differently than most other people. I wonder how much your education has influenced your game design and if anyone in the industry has ever mentioned this to you? You obviously make good games, but how often have you heard people inside the industry tell you, "That's a different way of looking at this (most often, very common problem)," and how often you ascribe that to your education/interest in history?

I love all of these armchair game developers and self appointed games publishing experts dispensing advice. It really warms my heart. From reading the first few pages, everyone's just worried about bugs, that's all. I don't see it as advice more as concerns.

I wonder if anyone has seen this? I found it interesting and relevant to this topic. http://extra-credits.net/episodes/game-music/

In Obsidian's other games, they've had a publisher. In most cases it is the publisher's responsibility to conduct the final quality assurance. With PE, the responsibility of QA befalls entirely to themselves. Wow I would recommend not the devs watching Extra Credits, but us the gamers. That stuff is really interesting and helps us get a better idea of how things are done.

Two things that concern me: 1- QA. As someone who used to work in software development and as a QA, I realized early that the more you know about the systems you are testing, the better a tester you can be. Knowing how things fit together and how things are inter-related can help with better QA. Why is this important? Most outsiders not invested in the game won't know these systems well enough and might not find those bugs that someone would otherwise look for. 2- In a lot of the older IE games, there were a lot of unfinished business mods where developers just didn't have enough time to incorporate all that "stuff" into the game. I really hope this will be minimized, because the more unfinished business left over, the less "completed" stuff gets into the game. Too much stuff that isn't well implemented is just as bad as too little stuff. Not trying to be rude or tell how Obs should do their job. These are just the things that I've noticed while playing older IE games. I'm sure they know what they're doing.

Yeah seeeing Arronax in Arcanum in a cutscene really helped me picture him in my mind and later empathize with him.

I have always loved how they've rewarded their forum readers though. it was interesting to read about the Unwashed Villagers.

Well fallout has quite a few monty python refs... but i agree. we're adults here and this is an adult game. the gimmicks can be left for the kids who eat that stuff up. /gets off high horse.

Oh man..... Poirot is awesome, I really like how he looks too with the moustache.

I'll only come if you bring lots of chocolate cake. To the OP. Well said.