Hormalakh

But there is no requirement that you be a "best friend" of someone to be a companion/ally. You can be a hireling. You can be following someone else because their agenda aligns with your own. You can be following someone else out of a feeling of debt. Myriad reasons. But none of them have anything to do with how many people are already around. None of those things would require me getting rid of any one character just to bring in any other character. That is purely a matter of balance and manageability. Per the dev team, there will be occasions where you might have more than 6 people who are "following" you, but those are for a limited period.

Eh not really. The way I see it, is that even in real-life, many people only have a few really close friends and allies that they would be willing to place their lives in their hands. Some people have a few more close friends than others, but usually you don't have a horde of people who you are willing to call "good friends/allies/companions." It's always a select few. Some prior RPGs have made companion limits based on a player's charisma. This is an abstraction of real-life. Six-man limit might be slightly arbitrary (why not seven or eight or five?) but as a general rule it follows what people would accept as a realistic possibility. It's not entirely arbitrary. Edit: the other thing I noticed is that some people consider the PC's party in different terms. Some call them followers. Others call them companions. I think companions is closer to what they are than "followers."

The point is that companions shouldn't be some sort of mindless, life-less quest option for you to finish and do away with. Companions should be just that, people who are by your side from the beginning to the end, through thick and thin. It's supposed to make players think a little more about why companions follow the PC and what they're willing to put up with. I understand this is a game, but a game with a well-thought out series of companions that act life-like makes the game that much more interesting. I truly do understand the perspective of players who want to be able to experience every companion (and the rest of the game) with the first play through - what some people call "power-gaming." It's how I play most of my games. But there have been those games where they've tried to minimize this sort of thing, and I've appreciated it. It's made me want to replay the game to further experience those aspects that I haven't. It's makes the world richer and deeper for it. Treating your companions like some sort of chattel should make the player feel guilty. Or at least fully think about that decision. That's what a thought-provoking game like this should do.

Exactly. It only took 3 pages of comments but someone finally explained what I could not. Yes this is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for being able to articulate my poorly worded question.

You could completely leave out "identify" as a spell, and ultimately only have a "detect magic/spirit" spell, that tells you if a sword is magical/enchanted. Otherwise, the equipment looks like all the other equipment. There would be no way for you to actually know if anything you got was enchanted unless you use that spell. Once you use that "detect magic/spirit" spell your enchanted items change their visual icon. Those with the proper lore no longer need to identify that equipment. Once they know it's magic/spiritual" a high lore tells you what it is. Otherwise, you can't know - you equip it and wish for the best. Or find a really ancient dude with a lore-score that's over 9000. eh, it's an idea. I don't really like it, but I don't hate it either. Mix and match it with other ideas given above and you might come up with something interesting, and that isn't actually a chore.

Uh, kinky? WOW... I didn't even mean it that way. I was talking about my sword. I don't think street fighting works well in a world filled with swords and guns. Let's lave martial arts to the crazy kungfu monks that don't really exist...

I think that there are plenty of places for the devs to get inspiration from. Since this game has been partially celtic/gaelic in its introduction, why not delve into celtic mythology for some monsters? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_mythology#Mythology_of_Ireland Hag of the Mist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hag_of_the_mist Banshee - an Irish mythological spirit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banshee Changeling, Sheeoge, pooka (irish goblins) and other irish fictions - http://www.libraryireland.com/LegendaryFictionsIrishCelts/Contents.php/ Other inspirations have been from Italian, so I looked up some ancient italian mythology. Etruscian mythology is quite varied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Etruscan_mythological_figures Graeae - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeae Iynx - Etruscan bird of love http://books.google.com/books?id=hQtbJyFCd40C&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Iynx+etruscan&source=bl&ots=QIts6Hrsog&sig=hrvOBfRjmxCsWonHOnJPonKN2gA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bGOLUPXaJpTa8wTkiIHIBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Iynx%20etruscan&f=false Lasa - class of goddesses Looking at some renaissance (since this is based in 1500's) monsters: we find the werewolf, the vampire, etc - http://books.google.com/books?id=UioYzDnNvecC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=renaissance&f=false Gargantua and Pantagruel - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargantua_and_Pantagruel Dr. Faustus a classic, has our old friends, the demons, devils, etc. Mephistopheles, etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Faustus_%28play%29 And to not forget the old roots, let's also look at Beowulf. Grendel Grendel's mother The dragon http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ch11.htm

Your dude comes in for the grapple. I poke him with my stabby stick. *poke poke*

So what're your thoughts. Should we have typed-in riddles or no? What about riddles that need numbers as answers instead of words? Algebra anyone?! :D :D :D I really liked the genie question from BG2 when you enter's Kalah's circus in Athkatla. That was a great (and tough!) riddle. I actually tried figuring it out once using math and it took me a good 5 minutes I really liked it. There are also some riddles that aren't "what is the word that describes my definition?" type riddles. There are ones where the answer can be found in the world, but you have to find the paper. Baldur's Gate 2 had another one similar to this: it was the human skin armor quest. The answer could be solevd from the letters that the tanner gives you but once you knew the first three or four letters, it didn't matter what the rest of the puzzle was because you could always "game" the multiple choice questions into figuring out which was the right one. So, to conclude, if it's a definition type riddle, that's fine, keep it multiple choice (but give us lots of choices), but if it's a number riddle or a riddle where the letters matter and you need the in-world items to figure out the clues, then make those typed-in! P.S. I really recommend you guys to play the old Might and Magic 3:Isles of Terra game. It does a really good job of this "typed-in" riddle. Almost all the answers can be fond in-game (there are a few that are practically impossible) and I think PE could have a similar application. The questions aren't definition-type riddle questions. The riddles are thing that you needed to have read somewhere else in-game (for the most part).

Eh.... ultimately there should be someone prodding you in the world. Otherwise, why am I even playing the game and doing the quests? I'm just going to go get my stronghold and lay back. That's what my lazy character would want to do. Why would I sacrifice blood and sweat and tears if I don't have someone being a thorn in my side? Haven't played FO:NV so I can't say how that works out in terms of character motivations. Ultimately, there should be an antagonist, but an antagonist doesn't always have to be a person.

Yeah I have a post about this in game engine and widgets. Ideas: -Turning a "page" (spell book, character sheet, book reading, etc) should be able to be done with "up/down" or "pgup/pgdn" keys. Make this consistent and just use the same function for it every time. - Customizable hotkeys. - Make casting magic facile by using intuitive hot key methods (e.g. hit "C" for cast, then another letter for the school of magic -"S" for summoning for example, then a third letter for the spell-type - "F" for fire elemental, for example = C,S,F -> cast "summon fire elemental") - allow us to quickly find a party member by hitting the # corresponding to party hierarchy (1 is first member, 2 is second member, etc). hitting that number twice centers the map on the party member. Or if this is being used for quickslot, allow us to use Function keys to do so. - Allow skills to also use hot-keys. Use similar methodology to spell casting (e.g. S,T,P -> skills, thievery, pickpocket or S,P -> skills, pickpocket, etc) - Allow arrow keys to move map - Don't use Esc to go to main menu. Use esc to go out of 'current page' if in inventory or something. - Make hot-keys battle ready, that is to say that allow an expert player to play with one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse. All combat type skills should be on left side of keyboard. (see starcraft) - Quickslot keys. -Multiple keystrokes are not a problem. Utilize them.

I loved 80's games. Like I said, it would be nice if it could be an option you can add/remove before you start a new game, like path of fury or ironman mode. Another possibilitiy is to make it data-driven, so that any localizer can make the necessary adjustments. Especially if you think more than one answer should work. Also, you can update riddles every so often with fan-made "mods" that change the riddles for you. You have a file called "riddle.dat" or something, where you can adjust riddles' translations as well as add in riddle answers that you think should also work. This shouldn't be *that* hard to do. Just throwing out ideas.

So I've been playing and replaying some of the older IE games and some other cRPGs these past few months and I've noticed that a lot of the riddles in the games are riddles that I couldn't remember the answers to many years later. I thought it was good fun having to figure out the answers again. However, as soon as I looked at the answer choices, the solutions were simple enough. All I had to do was pick the right choice (or reload and pick the right choice (or reload...)). Anyway, it would be nice if either on hard difficulty or as a game option, we would be able to type in the riddle answers instead of picking from a dialogue option. Might and Magic III:Isles of Terra is the only game I've played where I could/had to type in riddle answers through keyboard and I really enjoyed having to figure out the solutions. Anyway, it's worth bringing up. Computer AI is nowhere near being able to accept dialogue that is typed, but at least we can do a simple IF (typed answer) = "actual answer" THEN correct() ELSE incorrect() for riddles. It would be enjoyable and definitely harkens back to the good old days when video games were actually tough because of the riddles. For those of us who want to just go through the story or who don't have a strong background in English, we can remove this option to get through the riddles. I can see this being a problem for localization and translations, but hopefully there is a workaround. Oh, and don't make it case-sensitive.

No. Completing the game in one sitting means having to make quests linear and uninteresting. If quests don't have more than one solution, then powergaming comes into play. Think back to some of the older cRPGs. Many of them had several solutions and if I knew that I could solve everything in one sitting, then why would I come back and play the game again? Enabling powergamers with this sort of poor quest creation actually does affect my game - it tells devs to not worry about balance and creative quest creation, creating a poorer quality game and not something that could be later considered "a classic cRPG game" worth playing (and replaying).

If we want to play a game with multiple party members under the player control (unlike fallout or arcanum) then it would be best if the devs made sure to let us know their motivations. This would be easily done if they chime in whenever possible. As we know more about how they react to certain dialogue, that gives us more of an idea of how they are. Thus for thos of us who like to role-play them, we can RP them well.

I was going to suggest tiles as well, but I really think that it will be tough to sell the BG/BG2/IWD imagery if they did tiles. Those visuals were quite amazing. There could, of course be certain locations that used hand-drawn tiles instead of full drawn maps. Locations where geometric shapes made sense. Cities, mazes, certain locations of dungeons. But I wouldn't want them to go totally tile-set based. I want to see organic maps too!

Oh wow. Thanks for the link JOG. Very cool! Now I don't care if they don't. But, eh it'd still be nice.

With pause, you can make the game turn-based anyway. I actually like real-time with pause more than any other mechanism.

Not sure if the developers have seen this movie, but when I saw it, I thought Glenfanthan immediately. Devs, you should see this movie - it's pretty awesome. Obviously, your graphics aren't going to look anything like it (unless you have monks writing books!) http://newvideo.com/secretofkells/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0485601/

This is a grat website. If they allow us to import in images, this would be a great site to go to if I can't find an image that would fit my character. It would be wasteful for them to actually create this again in-game. Why not just use this one?

In the beginning of Arcanum, your first companion, Virgil, can be allowed to speak for you. The conversation option is [Let Virgil speak] and it was a great way for another character to speak. Of course, maybe you'd like the party member to say something else than what they've been programmed with. In any case, these sorts of things have been done in the past and can be done again. And done well.

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game. The ideal situation is controlled imbalance, it's when people can excel at things through the choices they've made and manage something every other choice couldn't have done. But in aquiring that ability, a tradeoff was made that puts some other choice above them in other situations. Mage vs Fighter is a good example. A Mage is ideally able to achieve a great variety of effects and intermittently deal a great deal more damage, but in exchange can absorb very little punishment and has finite resources. A Fighter is limited in the things he can do, but deals more consistent damage, has infinite resources, and can absorb large amounts of damage. Are they balanced? Never have been, but they're generally controlled imbalances until some later factor is introduces (Kensai) or some basic rules are not implemented (CRPG Rest Spamming because there's no restriction on resting). As far as power-gaming goes, there's no way to eliminate it unless you implement a "Real balance" game system, which again is incredibly boring. Unless everyone is absolutely identical, every reward is absolutely identical, there's a way to Powergame. Being identical doesn't equal "game balance". A balance is a metaphor used to describe two very different builds having equal viability and only losing viability due to player skill or knowledge of that build. A good example is Starcraft 1 or 2. I know these aren't RPGs, but they are games renowned for their balance. There are three completely different races (zerg, protoss, terran) which all play completely differently (different builds), but each race has an approximately equal viability on each map. The difference between winning and losing doesn't come from an innate strength or weakness in the race, but rather the playstyle and strategy of the player. My argument is that, by definition, an RPG is a game where different characters are created to journey into a world. These characters and builds are created by the player - within specific limitations created by the game developer. While there are some so-called "builds" that aren't strategic, a majority of character builds should be equal in viability (even though they may be different in play-style). Ultimately, it should be the player's skill that determines victory or loss, not a randomized variable. This equality in viability of different actual character builds is the definition of balance. There is another aspect of balance and that has to do with player builds being balanced against the "gameworld" itself. This usually isn't a problem in RTS because the "gameworld" is ultimately another race/similarly balanced enemy. But in RPGs the gameworld is very different from the characters built at the beginning of the game. A player character that becomes so powerful so that there is no challenge left in the gameworld usually means that either 1) the player is at the endgame scenario 2) the player has surpassed the challenge rating for that particular area and is now enjoying the boons of his character's (and the players) hard work - thus you can completely destroy 100 of those enemies that kept giving you grief much earlier in the game- or 3) the player's character build is unbalanced against his enemies. #3 makes a game feel like a chore and is called "grinding." It might be fun for some people to kill innummerable numbers of extremely weak enemies for a short period of time, but the lack of challenge makes these games incredibly unsatisfying over long periods for most players. A game that has no challenge, isn't a game. It's a chore. Balanced games make those games 1) fair and 2) rewarding when the player beats it. This is because the player knows that his/her victory was not a matter of chance but rather actual skill. Of course, there can be a partially random aspect to the game, but minimizing this is best. This is all completely off-topic because none of this has to do with "power-gaming." Which brings me back to the previous comment that I made. People are using different definitions of power-gaming in this thread. If by power-gaming, we're talking about finding the best strategy towards a certain build, then I wouldn't even call that power-gaming, I'd call that strategizing. But clamoring that there should only be one character build in the game that destroys everything else without any strategy coming into play isn't powergaming, it's gaming the system. Why even give the option to players to make their own character's at that point? That isn't fun for any player. The challenge is no longer in the adventure of your created character build; the challenge (and ultimately the game) has become "can you figure out which singular build the devs were thinking you need for this particular game?" The adventure portion is just a simulator to see if you got the right answer. Hope this makes sense. Sorry it was long.

I know it is really early to talk about this aspect of the game, but I've been playing some of the older games and I wish that some of these shortcut keys were a little bit more logical and made playing real-time easier, not harder. One example is the quickcast in Baldur's Gate 2. It was not a logical approach, and I really doubt most people would use keyboard shortcuts for quick-cast. Anyway, I'll talk more about this when we have some engine mechanics fleshed out, but I really wish that the shortcut keys would be implemented in a way that allows for "RTS-like" play. Like I said, I can't give a good implementation of this right now, but when I see more of the mechanics, I think I can give a better layout. Also, please allow us to utilize Shift+click, Alt+click, and ctrl+click.

Arcanum does this very well. You give your party members two options: "wait here for a bit," and "I think we should split up." If you split up then answer as above. If you make them wait, then they'll wait for a certain amount of time before they leave. That's one implementation method.

I don't think everyone is using the same definition for powergaming, so I'm not going to bother with those arguments for or against PG. Regardless, I do have to say: No specific class should ever be weak in and of itself. If it's a "weak class" they sohuldn't even bother with the development time. Why bother with all these extra classes and different options if they're inherently weak? What's the point? Making sure that character classes and options are balanced always makes for a good game. Nor should there be a weak skill. If it's weak, as the devs have already said, they're not going to implement it. The best games always have balance...