Water Rabbit

There is one problem with the Godlike choice. According to the manual: All godlike are sterile/infertile. However, when you enter the first village you are asked if you ever conceived a certain type of child. Clearly that does not make sense.

Bingo. That's the point. Your choices don't matter. You find the most optimal and go with it. I'd do the same thing. But if I knew that if I picked a certain dialogue option, that would be the only time I could choose unless I started the game over, I would actually sit and think about my choices before making them. If you want to do that, fine. But I want the game to make me consider my choices as a one-time thing. This is about the most silly point you have made. What is the most optimal? I generally make my choices based upon what amuses me the most as I play games for fun. I am not trying to build the most efficient combustion engine. Take a game like Mass Effect. The most optimal choices would be the ones that reinforce your Paragon/Renegade stat. However, those choices are often not the most amusing. Even more specific, in ME 1 the female Shepard's line "Because it's a big stupid jellyfish" is way more amusing than when the male Shepard delivers the same line. Neither of which are more "optimal" than some of the other lines. Which is the point you seem to not understand -- it's a Role-Playing Game not a Roll-Playing Game. Not every choice has to be the most optimal -- just cool or fun is sometimes acceptable. The ability to save games AT WILL allows for exploration of different options without having to replay the same thing over and over again. I really don't understand why people like you want to add tedium mechanics to a game. Go play some console games with checkpoint save that are far apart and then come back and talk to us how great tedium mechanics are.

Even just some sort of party formations ala Baldur's Gate would be refreshing. I have been playing Civ 5 quite a bit recently and it is really hard on the scroll wheel -- so much so that my finger is starting to get sore. Be careful what you wish for when adding more functionality to the scroll wheel.

The OP should go back to playing on Consoles with save points -- he would be happier. IMHO, there is nothing more frustrating than not being able to save at will. Even with my computer on an UPS, I generally have just enough time to save a game and shut my computer down before it loses power. The other fact that seems to be missing here is the idea of a tactical puzzle. Oftentimes I will save before a combat and win/lose/draw will reload it to try different tactics and combinations. Sometimes I will go back to my original save even with that because I liked the feel of it better. Sometimes, you may be playing a character of a certain type but want to explore different dialogue options just to see what they would look like. If you are an adult, hopefully you possess some modicum of self-control and can play the game the way you enjoy it. If that means you don't like "save scumming" (which by the way is a totally stupid concept and smacks of nerd elitism) then just don't do it.

Because it would be boring otherwise. Why would your farm-raised (merchant/whatever) boy/girl leave the farm without some sort of call to action? Why would anyone in their right mind leave the security of their mundane surroundings to go fight monsters? Even Jack in the Bean Stalk has a call to action. Why is your country boy going to the big city? The story you are talking about country boy goes to city, witnesses some event, and then buys his plow and returns to the farm is very boring.

Maybe they can create a DLC to satisfiy mcmanusaur and Hormalakh: Project Eternally Fat Old Nerds. Or perhaps you can just take a picture of yourselves and import that as your avatar? Win for everyone.

But isn't that the same to all dungeons that are linear? I mean not only the starting dungeons are linear, there are also a lot of other linear dungeons in many RPGs. Of course if you start a lot of games and never finish them the starting dungeons are played a lot more than others, that I would understand, but why would people only play the first two acts and then start over without finishing the game so often that they get sick of those starting parts? No. These starting type dungeons offer little in the way of character agency. They feel like they were put in solely as training wheels. Fallout 1 didn't have this feel. I liked the Morrowind / FNV style of dumping the character out into the game world where he can start making decisions from the start. With Irenicus' dungeon and the tribal start of Fallout 2 no character actions have any real meaning until the dungeon is left.

The original Traveller character generation was tedious and capricious. It was rightly dumped as complete drek. Hell why don't you bring up C&S or Space Opera as well for model character generation systems. Bleh.

The problem with Irenicus' dungeon (and all starting dungeon's for that matter) is replayability. The dungeon is interesting the first time, but after a couple of times just becomes repetitive. Fallout New Vegas had a short an sweet intro. It would have been even better if Obsidian had done something (not exactly) like the alternative start module. One of the strengths of DA:O was the different starting options. Even ToEE had different starting setups. I would prefer to see something more along those lines then the same linear starting dungeon that one has memorized by the third replay.

Actually there is a group of people that are just gamers. They play many different types of games. Life would be boring to restrict oneself to just one game genre (RPG/FPS/RTS/TBS). I personally have played the first two CoD games before they become entirely multiplayer focused. I enjoyed the MoH series of games more however. X-Wing/Tie Fighter were very good games as well (combat flight simulators to bring in another category). The Mechwarrior games were also great fun (giant robot combat simulators). I am probably one of the few who enjoyed Fallout 1 & 2 as well as Fallout: Tactics. Outside of computer games, I have played AD&D one weekend and Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) the next. ASL is probably the the most complicated game released with maybe Star Fleet Battles a close second. So this silly elitism is misplaced. There are fan boy in all genres and they irritate those of us who just would like to see a good entertaining game. The ultimate critique on a game is if it is worth the time spent replaying it. Most FPS games do not have as good a return as an RPG with some exceptions like Half-Life 2. BTW, I chose Baldur's Gate on the poll as well. It had the best balance of all of the elements involved. I will probably be playing BGEE upon release (assuming it is ever released). The EE has the play of BG1 and the enhancements of BG2. As long as they don't bollix it up it will be a fun play.

And yet it was so much better than ToEE. How anyone thinks that piece of drek compares to the other games listed is beyond me. ToEE had only one thing going for it: it had the most faithful rendition of D&D combat mechanics. Other than that it was just a buggy boring PoS. A lot of the continued longevity and love for ToEE stems from the Circle of Eight mods. Co8 has addressed so many bugs, added gameplay, and just generally allowed the game to reach much closer to its potential. It's definitely worth a look, if you like the game's design, but want to see improved stability. Thanks for the heads up on that. I didn't really know that the modding community to over with it. It probably won't help me too much since I have the game away a few years ago.

Would it be equally poor gameplay if one of your party members (rogue/assassin) snuck up behind an annoyingly difficult to overcome opponent and put a poisoned blade into his heart and thus assassinated the problematic opponent? Why would you need a save or die mechanic for this? A lethal attack is a lethal attack is a lethal attack. Beside poison is not an instant kill type of attack anyway.

I disagree. I think bad gameplay is when you can charge into any fight knowing you never have to worry about anything unexpected happening. Too much of that in today's RPGs. IE games were very much about having to reload after a failed encounter, and re-think your entire approach to it. It was an experience, a meaningful one, because it made you think. And you can't possibly call instant death spells, as per D&D, unbalanced - it's been worked on for nearly fourty years. Arguably one of the most balanced, unforgiving, and thought through role playing systems out there. I'm not saying I'm for the game griefing you repeatedly just to "make it challenging", no. Spells and abilities like these certainly have their place in a realistic world, and I have nothing against them as long as they enhance gameplay. You mean nearly 40 years. TSR released its first game in 1974. That also does not mean it was good game design since they were creating a tactical game and not an RPG. They just ported the mechanics. Your argument is odd, do you still drive a Model-T Ford because it was designed 50 years ago? Have you even played an RPG besides D&D? There are a plethora of games that use different mechanics that are far superior to the save or die system of D&D and allow for plenty of unpredictability and tactics. I will also point out that the save or die mechanic has been a source of controversy every since I can remember and I started playing AD&D in 1978. There are also other mechanics that have been sources of controversy -- mechanics that I have seen destroy gaming groups in fact. Yes AD&D 1st edition was very unforgiving -- especially on players since eventually the 1000s of saves they would have to make would eventually destroy a character. Great fun. It is of course why 1st Edition is still the edition that everyone plays and we have just imagined the countless changes made to it by 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (and soon ultimate). Other systems create lethal encounters without requiring a save or die mechanic. Yes, there are spells that can protect to some degree, but then you have to rely on recon-by-death to know a priori you would need them.

And yet it was so much better than ToEE. How anyone thinks that piece of drek compares to the other games listed is beyond me. ToEE had only one thing going for it: it had the most faithful rendition of D&D combat mechanics. Other than that it was just a buggy boring PoS.

NWN2 is just as bad, btw.

Save or die -- how boring. There are plenty of other magic systems than D&D that create more tactical options that just save or die. Frankly I hope the magic system looks nothing like D&D. I play D&D and have enjoyed games build around them, but can we try something new for a change? Also, most of the spells mentioned would be for much higher level play than has been mentioned by the developers who seem to be thinking 3-12th level power for the game (in D&D terms).

Fixed it for you. The problem with most game portrayals of magic is they never really consider the unintended consequences of magic compared to the body of literature on the subject. Also I really dislike teleportation in general. It allows poor writers to get away with the poor writing. Take NWN2 and just see how many times a villain teleports a bunch of creatures into the room (more than the rules of the game allow) and then teleports away. Teleportation takes away the difficulty of travel and when taken to the logical conclusion become the ultimate weapon. Teleportation needs to have tight limits and consequences. Otherwise, it is just a lazy trope. An interesting variation would be to allow teleportation, but every time someone teleports it creates the opportunity for an undesirable creature entry into the world. The book Master of the Five Magics by Lyndon Hardy was built upon the concept there was consequences for summoning creatures into the world -- both for the summoner and the world in general. Each branch of magic had some drawback or limitation to it that created an interesting dynamic.

No, just no. China did not have "the printing press 400 years before Gutenberg". By that argument you could say that 4th century Egypt had the printing press. The printing press of Gutenberg was not the printing press of Bi Sheng (a movable type press). Gutenberg's invention was high quality, durable, and created uniform printing. It allowed faster printing and creation of books than any previous invention. To put it another way, there were cars before Henry Ford, but it took Henry Ford to make them quickly and cheaply.

Cute and adorable has nothing to do with charisma. A charismatic person has the ability to get others to follow. Think Thulsa Doom. From a D&D perspective there is a symmetry between the physical and mental stats: STR = INT CON = WIS DEX = CHA

Prior to the printing press, there was literally enough handwritten documents to fill libraries -- be it tomes, scrolls, tablets, and whatnot.

OK, you "weapon experts" here is your challenge. You and 5 of your friends can take any muscle powered weapon you want plus any armor you want to trudge around in. I am going to send you back in time some 66 million years and have you fight a T-Rex. What are you going to take? It is not going to be a sword of any kind. Most likely it will be your running shoes to out run your five friends. Dragons would be typically thought of as tougher. Or you get to go fight a grizzly bear with a melee weapon, which one is it going to be? When people hunted large boar they don't take either rapiers or arming swords, they take a long spear and even then there is quite a bit of danger. To take down large game humans historically have used pack tactics when all they had were muscle powered weapons – generally spears and bows. From a game design standpoint weapons fall into two major classes based on how they are used -- swinging or thrusting; # of hands required. They can then be classified based on how they deliver their damage: piercing, crushing, and slashing (some add chopping). An attack can be blocked, parried, dodged, or absorbed (purposely or because of a failed block, parry, dodge). If an attack is taken, then armor (if any) can deflect, absorb, or disperse the energy of the blow; it can also fail. The partial or full energy of the blow is then applied to a bag of salt water that is internally organized. The bag can either leak (rupture) and/or create hydrostatic shock that disrupts the internal organization. All of the above are mathematical calculations that are trivial for a computer to grind through and have been done in many many games. The rest are the visual elements that create the aesthetics of combat -- how it is animated, how the weapons are employed, the frequency of attacks, how the weapons are modeled. In some games the math and the animations are coupled and in others they are not. For example, in NWN the "Dance of Death" has little to do with the math of how the attacks are delivered. In games that are "action RPGs" they are more tightly coupled. Since this is a combat with pause game, I would suspect that animations are going to be loosely coupled with the actual attacks. I personally would prefer the combat animations and the weapons to not look dorky. The IE games in the past have done a reasonable job of keeping out the extremely dorky weapons. I hope we don’t see double-bladed axes. I hope that the weight and length of weapons and armor are reasonablly close to the real-world analogs. I hope they don’t use dorky movie style combat animations. I hope they allow combat options that are at least as interesting as previous IE games, preferably better. I hope that weapons, shields, and armor present reasonable tactics based-upon their perceived funciton – ie, polearms might aid in tripping attacks, but daggers won’t. I would hope that someone in the equivalent of full plate or plate and chain could just overrun an unarmored person with just a dagger or club, etc -- as a person in armor can use the armor as a weapon against an unarmored foe. However, I would also how that a single person even if armored could be dogpiled by a bunch of lesser foes if they just stood around without trying to maneuver. However, I guess we will see.

The only real issue with the fixed view is when things hide behind the scenery, which was a common issue with Fallout 1 & 2.

"(I’ve always wanted to do Knights of the Old Republic III and finish the trilogy)." Yes , this would definitely be nice (though it would have been nice if they had "finished KoTOR II).

Realistically speaking, if healing is limited in the game, then most combats will become more like ambushes. Characters will do their best to avoid damage in the first place, so will only attack if the odds are overwhelmingly in their favor.

I detest rolling for stats as it becomes very tedious and removes meaningful build choices from the player. Fallout and D&D provide both provide methods to increase stats but in a limited fashion so they stay reasonable.