Pipyui

I do think you have the right idea, that the core element that distinguishes video games from other media forms is interactivity, however I do feel that there is a "sweet-spot" between linearity and nonlinearity as far as the story is concerned. A plot without direction is no plot at all - when I read a book or watch a show/movie, I expect there to be some form of progression towards a conclusion of some form or another. I hate shows that exist solely to drag you into the next episode, and I hate books that reward the diligent reader with a "continued in part two!" without closing at least a few major threads. While these mediums don't tie directly to video games, where you can hypothetically forge your own story rather than trod through the one set up for you, I think the impetus to push a player forward is an important element to maintain. I think that, without direction, a story flounders, and while the player can produce his or her own direction as suits them, there needs to be some stimulus put in place to invoke it. The Elder Scrolls tries this with mixed success, and I don't suspect the game could work without its faction quests, main quests, so on - regardless of how well they manage the mechanics. Escapism needs to drop a person into a world of fate and direction, where things may be larger than reality, and our heroes can fight enormous odds to safely get home, or not. But whatever the case, there is a reason given upon them to turn from one page to another, or watch the next scene, or crawl into the bandit lair. A player may create their own impetus, but a drawing force helps ground them and tell a story complete with all of the artistic talents a talented writer may apply to it. This wasn't supposed to be an essay, or a monster paragraph, sorry. tl;dr: Driving forces help draw the player into stories or substories rife with all of the talents a good writer can offer. I think that nonlinearity is something to aspire for, but that perfect nonlinearity shouldn't be a goal outright, as linear elements help provide grounding and progression.

It seems to me that the argument goes that taking the dwarf path and clicking through dialogue is notably easier for certain builds than combat, and thus should reward less XP. On the one hand I understand the "obstacle removing" argument, but on the other, I also see that rewarding the player for doing, arguably, nothing might be ... a debatable practice (the abstraction is that the PC is doing the work in lieu of the player, which makes sense, but the reality is also that the player is not meeting any challenge. I don't have any particular opinions on this matter). But I think we're missing the obvious argument that convincing the dwarf in the Firkraag scenario doesn't have to be trivial for the player. Simply, the dwarf might require a little incentive to help, and this incentive might even take the form of another quest. This quest could be other combat, stealth, thievery, etc. This could even allow for quest forks and whatnot. This way, XP can be granted equal for quest completion, regardless of path, and with player interaction and challenge on either.

Not saying I agree with the idea, but hey, had I the confidence to enter a fight in my swimsuit, I would. Course, I'm a dude, and a short and unathletic one at that, so really it would be more depressing than sexy. "Come at me vile creatures! I bring your demise!" "Eww, no. Come on guys, this one scares me." "You ought be scared! I've felled trolls! Wyrms! Dragons!! Cities!!" "And you did all that in your underwear, did you?" "Well ... no. It's a swimsuit." "Right. Right. So ummmm, I'm done raping and pillaging for today, how about you fellas? This one's too into it. Gives me the creeps." *yep, mhhhmm, nods* "Wait, come back! I'm putting on my armor now, see? Guys? Come on!" And thus ends the story of Pipyui the galant, the chaste, the exhibitionist. ... So what I'm trying to say is, langerie armor might not be a good idea.

Haha, what? No, nonek, of course not. Haha, ha. Damnit he knows.

I was reminiscing on the last hours of the Kickstarter when Obsidian held a live party at their studio to celebrate its successful close, and remembered the live chat access with the video feed. It was like reading the comments on youtube; while I had thought that the general maturity of those who would back a cRPG like this would be more in respect as what I find in these forums, it was a cesspit as any other on the internet. And I remember thinking: Gods, I hope Obsidian doesn't cater to this crowd in any fashion. Sometimes on these forums I see arguments between "thank you obsidian for hearing our voices" and "obsidian shouldn't listen to any of the crap we spout." But I thought we could play a little game: What would PE look like if Obsidian dropped developer integrity altogether and just went to target the biggest or loudest crowd? (you might call it "ultimate fanservice mode") My greatest irrational fears: memes universal clothing-toggle option everyone's romancable; multiple partners! giant anime swords giant anime hair tiny anime apparal / langerie armor anime anything any use of teen-speak acronyms (OMG LOL) greenshirt girl ultrasimulation - my sword should take into account the factor of air resistance super ultra gritty violent underground mature 18++, I'm not old enough physically, but I swear I'm like 20-something in maturity years, game objective arrows, everywhere auction house (a la Diablo 3) memes

But if you're in the bath more often than not, can you be classified as an island? I think what JFSOCC wants to get at is a discussion of the elements that might be widely associated with story and immersion, such that in art blues and purples are considered "sad" colors, and oranges, reds "warmer." The eyes tend to follow lines and "paths" towards yada yada, I hate art. In cinematography there are many tricks to evoking the right images, emotions, whathaveyou using light, shadow, color, perspective, more that I'm not going to get into because frankly, I don't know any. I'm not trying to be clever in my ignorance, but I should give the thread a little effort before it gets hammered into the ground. Is it fair to say that there are widely accepted "rules" to follow that might improve immersion in a video game? I honestly don't know, but I'll try. I supose these are all too obvious, but first thing comes to my mind is verisimilitude. The less that I'm reminded I'm playing a video game, the better. This means that narrative naturally flows and doesn't take enormous leaps into the inconcievable or implausible. Characters are well-developed and act out their parts appropriately. The setting is completely fleshed and believable (or understandable). Music is generally conservative, but asserts its presence as the situation deserves. Mechanics serve to enable my gameplay instead of limit it - by this I mean that mechanics serve to increase my choice of option in a given situation, as opposed to those that serve to restrict due to game constraints (invisible walls (no, not impassible terrain, I really mean invisible walls)). These mechanics should be fairly consistent - if I can walk through doors into buildings, I don't want to see doors painted onto buildings that I can't even attempt to enter. Perception should transition smoothly. When I fast travel, I want to see some abstraction of having done more than a simple teleport, even if that's so simple as just indicating a passing of time, a track of steps across a map. Generally speaking, I suppose the combination of narrative and my perceptions should meld well into a form that doesn't jar or otherwise assualt my suspensions of disbelief. Sorry about that - sermon over.

Meh, I'm not so sure I'm really in the "child killing" camp. I'm okay either way - it only bothers me when kids (a la skyrim) are immortal meat puppets. I can understand why Obsidian would shy away from it; if this thread is any indication, the topic is a hotbed for heated debate and bad PR. I don't know, it doesn't bother me if I can kill children in games. It doesn't bother me if I can't kill children in games. I don't need the fulfillment of power to know that I can garrote anything and everything that moves, including harmless human larvae (larvae, right?). The option is nice I suppose, if just because I believe that censorship to accomodate bleeding-hearts is unneccessary. On the other hand, I acknowledge that putting certain types in control to flesh out their darker fantasies may be a little dangerous. I'm kinda neutral on the issue, and if Obsidian wants to avoid a potential PR ****storm by sidestepping it, that's a-ok with me (as above, so long as children are not immortal meat puppets). Child murder and abortion are two sepparate issues, and I don't think the latter has any place on these forums. The first removes exceptions from a mechanic (of killing things), the latter adds unnusually specific scenarios to mechanics (which would be pretty creepy in this context). I'm not advocating that we should be power juggernaughts in this game, (GTAV's got that covered, and the PR storm to verify), but we also shouldn't be all too quick to throw ourselves against content that incites reaction and a little introspection into the darker side of our egos.

Aaaand, now I'm on a list somewhere. Fantastic.

We already know that there are going to be soulless children in the game, as guinea pigs for awful soul experiments, turning them into monsters. Besides the interactive and choice elements involved in personally killing children, I personally can't see it as too much worse. My only real opinions on this matter are that, yes, I'd like to see children in the game. Whether or not I can kill them is only particularly important if there is a WHOLE FRIGGIN CITY OF THE BASTARDS THAT I CANNOT TOUCH (little lamplight). If the kids run away or are untargetable, that's fine; so long as they don't just take hits like target dummies. Maybe there could be reason to give all the kids super guardian souls, I don't know. Kids: yes. Killable: sure, maybe; doesn't matter once the mod comes around.

Well stated. If we were to make it so abstract, just about all fantasy novels pretty much go: tragedy -> happy end; it doesn't mean that they're all the same. I just needed fuel to lead my joke. The end of a story/quest/whathaveyou should be an organic closure of the journey preceeding - hard, easy, happy, bitter. So long as events and conclusions follow one another with reasonable coherency, I'm pleased. Planescape: Tides will have us covered in the crushing, bleak, dreary and dreadful department, so I'm thinking Eternity will have a little more range of emotion.

Heartfelt ending proceeding tragedy? - Overused trope. Tragic ending, everything falls apart. - Lost its novelty ages ago. We need a story that doesn't begin nor end in happiness or sadness, but lies entirely in the limbo of "meh." Come on guys, it'll be loads of the usual routine, I promise.

Any important bits in there somebody wants to highlight for me? I could not for the life of me listen to that.

Two rings is fine for me, any more than three is just getting too complicated. Either your team becomes overpowered or the rings individually become worthless. I suppose you could make a game of stacking particular ring effects, but I don't like the idea. I like rjshae's idea best:

Holy smoley, where are you getting your numbers from? I may be talking strictly from ignorance of most things audiophile, but my understanding is that an audio CD at 44100Hz is 1411 kbps. DVDs and Bluray at 48KHz would be 48*7(channels)*16(bits) = 5376 kbps. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#Audio) What in the hell are you listening to at 25000 - 40000 kbps? I find it hard to believe that even the best recording and audio equipment can handle that level of fidelity without losing it in the reality of imperfect electronics. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make an attack. I'm just a skeptic. <-- (disarming smiley face)

As far as I know, the ocelot speaks truth. The rendering of the pillar is 2d, but there is also a rough and invisible 3d model of it that determines occlusion and player movement. I imagine this also serves as a hitbox for projectiles and the like.

I tend to skip over the books that read little better than a wikipedia excerpt. In game books should have a little character, whether it be in biasing history towards a politcal agenda or explaining lore from the words of a scholar if I'm to read them with any interest. I want to read of what other in this world have to say regarding it, not a dessicated encyclopedia broken into scattered volumes.

We are the amazons, from a land without men. It was not always such though, here and there can be found remnants of our other half, long gone. A crushed beer can, a football, a morning glory calendar. One day they took themselves to all the basements beneath the earth, and never returned. We can only guess at what they found down there, for fear impedes our own investigations. An awakening evil? Was the Y chromosome home to a genetic timebomb inducing such madness as to make one bury themself alive in the dirt away from the sun? The hypotheses range from the absurd to the only-slightly-less absurd. The fact is that they are gone. Perhaps some day they will reamerge, though as better or worse men we cannot know; or perhaps it will be the evil they could not stop that will arise and take us. But we cannot await such a fantasy - we must be strong and carry on this half a world we have left to us. We must be strong, and we must pray, and we must hope.

^ Too late to edit. For clarification, the reason I think this works better than to simply have one light source shadow-active at a time is that it gradually shifts the shadow between different light sources, and approximates a shadow from multiple sources.

As with others, the most jarring thing to me is the shadows cast in the wrong directions. This only particularly bothers me when the characters stand next to point light sources, like the candles or the purple light in the "soul engine" screenshot. I have no idea how such things work, but it looks to me like the devs are using a single fixed light source, abstracted at infinite distance - like the sun, to cast shadows on all 3D models? What if instead, each character has a similar single light source tied to it, and environment light sources can act as modifiers to its virtual location? When a character approaches a candle, their virtual shadow-casting light source is "drawn" towards it like a magnet. Closer proximity, stronger modifier. Multiple light sources shouldn't be too computationally complicated, because there is only one shadow-casting light, and each source's modifier can (and, I think, should) be computed independantly of the others (linear instead of exponential complexity). This way, when a character approaches a candle, their shadow shifts away from it appropriately (if not with full 3D accuracy). Two candles would cast an "appropriate" shadow between and away from themselves, as this virtual light source is drawn towards and between the candles. This sounds reasonable to me, because it mixes dynamic shadow elements with something like the fixed and computationally-light "shadow under feet" shadows others laude; but as I said, I know very little of how lighting engines really work, so .

The monsters sound fun and the chat UI looks great. My only nitpick with the later is that we see the "Osmaer -" preceding narative that self-describes the innkeeper. I'm just being picky though. For that matter, it would also be great if I could make dialog choices with the numpad. If there are going to be wicht creatures around, does that mean I can meet children without souls too? Just kinda curious as to how that would be portrayed in the setting, and what kind of stigmas might be attached to them.

Oh no! Not another "flip the levers scattered around the room to turn off the machine" scenario! I kid, the scene looks fantastic, though the character lighting is of course a little disorienting. Very good with keeping to the concept art! Keep up the good work.

Yes, but I don't mind having cheat options available to me for playthroughs beyond my first. Sure, I played the bethesda games all traditional-like, but I also enjoyed toying around with help from the console. Sometimes it's fun to play for serious, and sometimes for not-so-serious. Having a little help when the game bugs out on me helps too. Yeah, I get ya.

We haven't had a good sound and music design update yet. I don't need much, I just want a taste of where it's going.

Interjecting the argument, personally I'm happy with any combination of items mentioned in the poll, to varying degrees, except persuasion, haggling, and an appraisal skill. As mcmanusaur mentioned earlier, I find all of these quasi-magical force power mechanics boring and otherwise detracting from the more interesting elements of a game. They are very limited in scope, and otherwise produce no fun challenges for the player to solve or overcome. Though I can understand the desire for more options and mechanics in an RPG, I feel that those such half-baked are undeserving and prove only to shallow a game's overall character. Sometimes there is elegance in simplicity and intential design (that being, elements designed to serve a narrative or otherwise fun purpose), and I would rather have my attentions focused towards polished and interesting game elements than a merchantile skill (optional or otherwise). Sorry, rant over, you may continue now.

Hold on, wait a minute. Forton isn't a monk? Have I had this misinterpretted the entire time? I coulda sworn he was a monk.