Hormalakh

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.

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.