Water Rabbit

The mechanic used by Obsidian in FNV was very much an "ordinary" person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now this person was not in an "ordinary" profession for the world, but hardly and extraordinary position either. Basically just a mailman shot and robbed for carrying a package someone else wanted. However, many people on various FNV boards complained that the character had really little motivation to get involved with the various factions. Frankly after getting revenge, there was little to drive the character forward in the narrative. In fact the one option the character did not have was to go back to doing his job as a courier. The one option most likely to be taken after the revenge motivation was played out. The courier really did not have a dog in the Legion/NCR fight. I think the reason for this was, in part, because the character's possible companions had such shallow stories. The companion that has the most developed story also had little reason to be in the Legion/NCR fight. So, if the game is going to try a story (as opposed to being a sandbox game) then the character being in the wrong place/wrong time meme has to have a good hook to propel the character forward into the story. I think this type of story be its vary nature has to have a "what's in it for me" type of angle. In NWN2 by Obsidian, you have a similar type of story in that the player is really only special because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time (as an infant). Yet the character is propelled into the story because he becomes hunted, so survival becomes the motivation. Of course in both FNV and NWN2, the character is ultimately disappointed at the end because the author's cheat the player of the 'reward'.

For a real life example, just look to the Mexican cartels that use children as assassins.

The sword fight in Rob Roy has to be my favorite in a movie that illustrates how a claymore compares to a more finesse-based sword.

The realism of a weapon depends upon its use. D&D has in various was tried to model this with less and less complexity with each addition. What armor an opponent is wearing, what formation tactics they use, mounted or unmounted, and climate all come into play to some degree or another. Fantasy or not, medieval Europe or not, form fits function throughout history. Looking at how weapons are realistically used across history and cultures gives does not limit a designer into creating an interesting system. However, I would like to lobby for at couple of swords that curve inward, such as a falcata, in addition to the traditional swords that curve away from the edge like the scimitar. The kukri could also be an example, but not limited to the short-bladed version. What I don't care for is a system used in TES games in which the materials and weapons have no logic to them at all.

I would also like the option of an alias if the game involves any intrigue at all. It would be silly for your character to use his "real" name if dealing in subterfuge.

I have always just opened the container and used the "Loot All" button until my inventory is full or I am so encumbered that I cannot move and then I sort it out. I have tried systems where you can order your companions to loot the bodies, but they seem to be too slow. In games where they auto-equip the best loot it can be a blessing/curse.

Yeah, there wasn't much banter in PS:T. The vast majority of character content required that you initiate dialogue with them. I suspect a lot of people didn't do that. And then find out--whoa, reams and reams of content far surpassing all BG2 companions combined. Yes this is true. It would be cool if obsidian took a cue from some of the amateur writers for NWN. These writers created a system in which a companion would display a soft video and audio cue when they had something to say. That way the PC would know there was something, but could postpone or ignore it depending on what was going on at the moment. It creates a system that is less disruptive to the flow of the game.

I would hope they avoid the kind of companion model that dominated FNV. In FNV each companion had an introduction and then a companion quest. Once both were finished they no longer really had anything to contribute storywise. Some companions had longer arcs than others (say Veronica vs Lilly) but once done they really stopped being companions and more like mules at best. ED-E was the most developed companion obviously. Eight well crafted companions works for me. I also believe that companions should have their own stories and should have the ability to drift in and out of the PC's story. A previous poster thinks there should be a companion for each conceivable class/race combination, but not only is that not particularly feasible, it is not particularly interesting as well. For the most part there are only four party roles in most party based systems and everything beyond is just variations on a theme.

I think this is the biggest fear I had about the project given the past performance by Obsidian (KOTR2, FNV, AP, TOEE). These previous projects were all unfinished and unnecessarily buggy on launch -- well KOTR2 was not as buggy as the rest.

The simple answer for this is that English doesn't have the equivalent to Real Academia Española. I agree with the poster from Costa Rica. Clearly words are used differently in different dialects. However, in the formal, grammatically correct version of a language these differences are much less pronounced. As an American, I can understand the formal use of English from just about anywhere -- even India. You certainty would not want to see the bastard child of Latin Spanish and English as used on the US Border with Mexico as your translation base.

The point about all endgames: When they all for character agency they work well. When the character is railroaded into a particular ending or given choices without meaning (ME 3, DE: HR) then they are unsatisfying. I also fall into the camp that dislikes tedious boss battles like most console games have.

I think there can be "quest markers" without a game becoming a TES game. Games have had minimaps since probably longer than you have been playing them. The point is to make them fit within the atmosphere of the game. I definitely do not want to go back to graphing areas by hand to try and figure out the relationships just like I don't want to go back to keeping detailed notes of every encounter and every quest so I can get complete them. Games like the first Wizardry and Bards Tale spring to mind here. Quest markers pointing out a person out of a large crowd of people that are only distinguished by the name "peasant" would be welcome over having to query 100 "peasants" to find out if they are the person you are looking for. However, given the types of games the developers have created (as opposed to using someone else's mold) I don't think that either extreme is likely.

I personally do not like scripted unwinnable encounters. It is absolutely what I despised about Witcher 2 / Kotor 2. Even in the final battle in Witcher 2 the developers stole your well earned victory by replaying the battle in a cutscene how they wanted it to go. I don't know how many of you might have played Curse of the Azure Bonds, but early on there were extremely difficult encounters that could be skipped. The most difficult one was at the top of a tower with something like 20 black dragons -- an almost impossible encounter to win at the level the character was at. However, I was eventually able to come upon a combination of character build plus tactics to beat all 20 dragons. This was the same challenge as in BG 1 trying to defeat Drizzit. He was clearly labeled as an unwinnable encounter. However, with the right combination of character build plus tactics it was a just a very difficult encounter. In both of the above cases the player was not forced into fighting. The player had to choose to start the fight and then get owned as it took quite a bit of head scratching to figure out how to beat each encounter. However, the payoff was quite large for each -- massive XP in Curse and great equipment in BG1. I think too many of the immersion people forget that ultimately we are playing a game. Some people enjoy figuring out the tactical puzzles and some just want to enjoy the encounter without that. Trying to force a style of play onto a player takes away character agency and you might as well just read a story.