Rahkir

Oh, sure. Preferring one over the other is totally valid. Insisting that one is the "correct" way because of some "realism" argument is NOT. I didn't argue from realism, I argued from plausibility within the game world. Which is certainly a valid means of argument for a game's atmosphere. Level is not just an arbitrary number, it is a representative number of general proficiency (It is a comparative scale, 1 is less powerful than 2 which is less powerful than 3 and so on). Would Xzar and Monty, left to their own devices in BG1, really grow as much in power as the PC? Maybe, but probably not, given their general ineptitude without the PC's leadership. So when I come across them later in the game or hear of them, why should they be of equal power to me? Did Xzar maintain an equal level of power with the PC when you met him again in BG2? No. Why not? Because he wasn't a companion. He was left to his own devices and he didn't conquer or triumph over all the obstacles the PC faced. Leveling someone up or making excuses simply because they have the tag "companion" when they would not otherwise, seems silly to me. That is my preference, you are free to have a completely contradictory one, but I maintain that my preference is just as valid as yours. Fun cannot be derived objectively. But, this is a similar idea to why I find it so silly that because my character in Oblivion was super powerful, every random bandit joe that I met in the woods had glass armor and could kill a whole town of people. Companion scaling or enemy scaling, I don't like it.

Oh, Porkey, what a jerk... I always wanted to punch him. Voted very independent. But I want complete control in combat barring very unique circumstances. (Thinking of Minsc making Aerie his new witch and berserking if she dies).

i think you 're missing the point. if you reward something more, then you give incentive to the player to abbandon their chosen play style in favor of that extra reward. i play the cold merc that does anything for money, no questions asked. to stick to my chosen path, in your example i would just kill the target on sight. but if i know that i wil get rewarded more for playing Ghandi i would be very tempted do that... it is a form of roleplay to decide based on the size of the reward (my favorite in fact), but it's not who my character is in that particular playthrough. i should not get penalized by the game for playing that way. besides why one option should be considered hard work and the other lazy? killing a guy in the middle of the street would invite all sorts of trouble. to kill him stealthilly in his house would take careful planning and patience. so killing one or the other would not be much easier than talking them into trusting each other... it would just take a different kind of skill set How would you know with absolute certainty which choice offers the best reward? Which path is the best for a powergamer? The only way I know is to check a walkthrough or use some external knowledge that would not have been available to the character you're roleplaying. That doesn't seem like roleplaying to me. And your character sticking to their beliefs even when there is an incentive not to makes them seem so much more real! Is your cold and ruthless mercernary really cold and ruthless if he would be warm and forgiving if it gave him a better reward? Even if exp is all the same, I am 90% positive PE will offer varying rewards for different paths. Because the fact is, you're not going to get the same items or opportunities no matter what you do. Sometimes the goody-two-shoes diplomat is going to have a better skill set for the situation. Sometimes the cold, ruthless diplomat is going to have a better roleplaying vantage point. Sometimes diplomacy isn't even an applicable skill set. If you agree that certain skill sets will not be applicable everywhere, then you agree that they are of varying effectiveness in certain situations. This also applies to objectives where diplomacy is not completely irrelevant, but is not as good of a choice as violence. Some choices are better than others; it's a fact. Trying to design every objective with an equivalent method of solution for any number of skill sets would be near impossible. Sometimes diplomacy is better fit to solve a scenario. Sometimes violence is a better fit. Sometimes neither is a good fit and something else must be attempted. The key is to have a balance of different situation in which different characters shine. As some people have mentioned before, if all characters shine equally in all situations, it doesn't seem like they really shine at all. Being inadequate in certain situations highlights so much more those situations in which we are the embodiment of a virtue or skill. At least in a party-based game. If you are a solo protagonist in a non-team oriented game, designing an enjoyable experience is different.

Am I the only one that thinks flagellants sounds too much like flatulence? Yes, probably.

So you stipulate that the only thing going on in the entire world is what the PC is doing. If they're off-camera, how do you know what they've been doing? For all you know they went and killed 4,000 dragons and they rightfully ought to be level 50 by now. They went and killed 4,000 dragons but managed to be at your beck and call whenever you want, in the same place that they always are? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the given way it's implemented in games, it's a big stretch of the imagination to think my companions in NWN2 have so many great encounters that I come back and they've got eight level ups for me to distribute. If an NPC levels up -before- I meet them, when I have no idea what they're doing, it makes more sense than if they say "Heya, I'll wait for you here if you need me!" and I come back to a super powerful ally. If you can somehow implement it so that it's plausible to think they've kept up with your main party, then I'm all for it. But, I honestly prefer the way old games handle it, like BG and Shining Force.

The way I see it, that is only valid if one looks at a walkthrough or is playing the game for the nth time. There should be no external indicator that says "This options give more rewards!" for every choice in the game. The point is you don't know what choice is more rewarding, just like the character you're roleplaying doesn't. You can use logic to try and figure it out, but you usually won't have absolute certainty without external information. If all paths give the same reward, doesn't that make it even harder to roleplay? Should a mage casting invisibility on the party, then walking past all of the enemies, grant as much objective reward in terms of skill to the party compared to if the whole party employs strategies together and fights their way through? Edit for clarification; this wasn't rhetoric, I don't know the answers.

That implies all of the paths are linear from a to b. What if you literally can't just force your six man group into a well defended strong hold? You'll need to pursue other means (maybe by getting outside help, etc. then using force (like a trojan horse)). Or are you saying every single obstacle in the game should be directly solvable by combat, stealth and diplomacy? That is what I said leads to linear a to b design. Moreover diplomacy is going to be impossible at times. So will stealth. What if your opponent doesnt care what you say? What if someone breaks into your inn room and attacks you? Is the "stealth" solution to hide under the covers? What if there's a hostage situation and you can't save the hostage by brute force but you can by stealth/diplomacy (which may also require more time, thinking and planning); should you get the same reward either way? That is; is the objective to save the hostage? If yes, combat would fail. Are there two different objectives? Save the hostage or exterminate the kidnappers, if so are they both of equivalent challenge and if not, should the reward be the same regardless?

Is experience inequality, in every situation, always bad? There have been many discussions over the experience mechanics in PE and this question seems to be underlying all debates. Should all choices in a situation give the same or very similar experience? Many people seem to assume yes. I've seen this reason: once people learn the 'most beneficial' way they will always do that. With onreadig this assumes that in every instance diplomacy or combat will offer greater rewards. This is not necessarily true. Potentially, sometimes combat could reward greater than diplomacy and the reverse. What about concurrent play throughs, some might ask? I don't think a game like PE should be designed from the point of restricting power gaming. Are people who want to role play the second run through aos a diplomat going to pick the combat solution because it "gave more rewards" last time? And if a person wants to play a sociopath who will do whatever it takes to get the best rewards, cool! Ultimately to me it doesn't seem logical to say every possible solution to a problem gives the same amount of exp and I don't think it should; so long as throughout the entirety of the game we have enough rewarding options for each 'style' at various points. Sometimes a cunning diplomat -is- going to get more than an uncharasmatic, yet incredibly skilled, thief. Implementing a way for every style to get every reward leads to linear and restricted design. Feel free to disagree with my reasoning and discuss.

I would enjoy it; don't we have some info that a character we'll meet is a gnome (or whatever they're called) detective?

If it is possible to find a publisher that says: "You made a successful fan-funded game that sold really well, make another one just like it with our budget," I imagine OE would still have most of the control, but we'll have to wait and see.

I'm with you; I can't see them not having an import/export function, especially if they have a HoF-like mode. I suppose they could theoretically force people to take on HoF at level 1; it was possible in IWD.

The only instance of game abuse that really impacted how I played the game was the power of my sorcerer via various cheesy combinations of spells (infinite wishes, stop time + improved alacrity + expending my whole arsenal and then casting a few spells to regain everything). Rest spamming and pickpocket reloading can be easily explained away by "My character wouldn't do that." But what is there to explain away why my sorcerer wouldn't create a simulacrum and destroy everything without taking a scratch? Would he really hold back that power just because it makes combat more tactical and challenging? I admit that's a matter of balancing the game, but it certainly felt like abuse to use those cheesy combinations of spells that really shouldn't have worked. So ultimately, I think if the player has a reason why their character wouldn't abuse the system (sleeping for 80 hours in a hostile cave) then role-players will be satisfied, but if there is no good reason why their character wouldn't 'abuse the system' I think that can cause problems. Maybe I just get into character too much Either way people who want to abuse the system will find ways, most likely (I admit I am often one of those people, though not on my first playthrough).

Why is negating the existence of 'life' after death an impossibility? Reincarnation, and transitional phases between reincarnations, seem to be a form of life after death, even. There are many ways Gods could potentially reach down and touch your soul, fracture your soul, perhaps put your soul into an eternal damnation, but even if they can't: do the Gods have to be cared for?

I was trying to say that the gender of the body a soul inhabits does not have to be relevant at all to the soul; it could go both ways. I used the example of male and female, in a specific sense: one male is not worse or better than one female because of gender, but because of the soul that inhabits the body. It's interesting to imply 'better' souls would incarnate in one of the genders, but I don't think that would make for a very fun world. The point of what I said is: if the gender of a body is irrelevant to the soul (there is no male or female soul), then the power and potential of a person, as far as soul manifestation goes, would be based completely separate of gender. Like Socrates' ruling class in the Republic; the knowledge in a soul makes no distinction between gender. That said, I'm sure people could still find ways to be sexist, it would just be different than the way we think of sexism today. (And there's nothing to stop people from believing all males receive inferior souls, even if they are wrong.) Edit, @Gyor, this is a fantasy world, not an Earth-based Renaissance with magic, at least that's what I thought. So there's no need to arbitrarily limit ourselves to the thought processes of ancient humans, or humans of a specific locale/culture. We have all different races at different technological points in PE.

I posted about some similar ideas here and got some interesting responses from people, as well, if you want to check them out.

I like that a lot Sykid; I almost forgot about the various descriptions of your "room class" when staying in town. I always loved those, they added a bigger sense of realism and integration for me than micromanaging desires ala The Sims.

I think Camus' concept of philosophical suicide fits perfectly into this universe. For the absurd to exist, man must also exist. Camus claims that the common person (office workers, etc.) of reality unknowingly exists every bit as absurdly as an absurd hero, and only by acknowledging our true state of absurdity can we escape the loop and be in a state of eudaimonia. The mysteries of the soul are not well understood in PE. While reincarnation seems somehow empirically present, can you not imagine a similarity between Sisyphus and a life in PE? To push through life until the end, only to be sent back and repeat it all over again. Like the conqueror, the artist, the seducer, an absurd man must realize his actions are akin to acting, and actions have no real meaning; this is all the more relevant if one literally lives the death of Sisyphus. It is unclear to me what death is in PE (something like in the phaedo​; death simply as the separation of soul and body? It seems more complex than that with the idea of fracturing, etc.). Sisyphus was called an absurd hero for his scorn of the gods, rebellion against Death (capital D), hatred of death and passion for life. What is real death? What causes a soul to leave the body? The gods (Death)? What is it to really live? Is it better to remain living in a body, or is it better in transition; awaiting a new body? I think the ideas expressed in the Myth of Sispyhus can easily be carried out in PE, to an even deeper and more scientific extent, perhaps. There does seem to be a distinction between science, metaphysics, thinkers, playwrights, etc. in PE. Taken from The Official, Unofficial, BoM Project Eternity Information Thread! On souls: I agree with you, though; it will leave a lot of room for experimentation with ideas and concepts by the writers; I look forward to see what they bring. What is the appeal of philosophy to you? Philosophers throughout history have claimed to try and describe, identify (and often explain) the right way to do things; morality, ethics, etc. rely on objective standards of judgement, meaning some people are doing things wrong. But the right way to do things does not have to be "Rawr I am all powerful, tremble before me and do as I command right!" Can you really imagine the Gautama Buddha saying that? Or the Dalai Lama?

I hope the role of scholars and philosophers is an important one in PE. If the soul is a resource that can physically manifest and be controlled, philosophy, as practiced by many thinkers, would hold a lot more practical power (not to understate the profound impact philosophy has had on the world, and while one could argue philosophy can drive people to power, philosophy (a love of knowledge) itself does not kill or manifest upon the world in the way matter does; one cannot rule the world with philosophy alone). If you look at philosophers from our universe, take Socrates, for example, he seems to be the embodiment of a Cipher; using the elenchus and dialectic to "control" or "invade" the souls of others, or as some would say, to corrupt the souls of others. Obviously the world of PE will have its own philosophers and cultures, but this is fun to imagine: Early Western/Ancient Greek Philosophers sought rational and logical explanations for an ordered universe. The soul as an eternal, wise ruler, which holds all knowledge for humans to recollect (almost makes me think of D&D sorcerer). Complete order and control over the body's appetitive nature, or the lesser emotions and feelings: hunger, thirst, pain, pleasure, etc. to unlock the true potential of the soul. Emphasis on a fundamental, indivisible, unit of matter that makes up the world (interesting connotations for Wizards, Priests, and well, everyone (imagine if Lemaitre could manipulate or manifest a primeval atom?)). Their detailed analysis of paradoxes could lead to inventive manipulations of the soul. Pythagoras is said to have claimed that he recalled prior his prior lives with the same soul (perhaps he was awakened!). Early Eastern Philosophers, very vaguely and generally (which I would argue is bad philosophy on my part!), believed all things are soul; all things should be respected for their potential. Acceptance of other paths. Extreme levels of neutrality; emotions and the corporeal are inconsequential overall. Moments of enlightenment or satori (in PE, bursts of incredible power, if the soul is what grants power; where the body stops and the soul starts becomes an illusory blur; almost akin to divine possession, but from within, or something similar). Many paths through life and many paths to achieving positive upward reincarnation. Behavior of soul in prior lives imparts certain circumstances onto soul in later lives. Enlightened, or awakened, souls remember the events of past incarnations. What would the ideas of Descartes bring to bear on the clear existence of a soul? What of Nietzsche? Are desires and emotions felt in the soul or elsewhere? Is the soul in a state conflict like a human? e.g. I shouldn't eat that cupcake because it's bad for me, but I'm going to do it anyway! (Two different and seemingly conflicting desires within one stuff). Is the soul the center of emotions and rationality or neither? What of Camus (on a side note, I can imagine Camus very much as a noble paladin crusading against the absurd)? Or Russell? It's incredibly interesting to imagine... I think the moral dilemmas that can be raised with "soul-ism" are profound and far reaching; perhaps even more poignant than trying to make moral quandaries with sexism or racism in a modern sense. A man is not less than a woman because of his capabilities as a man, but because his soul is lesser. Dwarves are not lesser than humans because they are dwarves (necessarily), but because all or most dwarves receive inferior souls. As in a reincarnation hierarchy; which leads to the question, what is the greatest incarnation for a soul to exhibit? If there is a quantifiable aspect of souls it puts a whole new spin on the value of life and existence. The possibility of fracturing a soul and so forth could be interestingly applied to many topics, e.g. suicide (to address the idea, "I want another chance/a better situation, so I'm going to off myself and hope for better luck next time.") We started off BG with a quote from Nietzsche. Almost inherent in IE games are these strongly academic and scholarly, but entirely understandable, lines of inquiry and motivators of choice. What better realm than Eternity to explore and experiment with philosophy? I'm excited.

I felt like the portraits in the BG series painted a stronger picture of character/personality right off the bat. Tiax had a haughty expression, with the light casting an almost other-worldly glow across his face; and the pipe! Xzar seriously looked like a psychopath who was potentially going to murder you in your sleep. So on and so forth. The essence of a character is not the hat he or she wears, it is not the armor they have, or the 'power' they get when leveling up. The essence of a character is their personality, their traits, the stuff that remains in your mind a decade after you first meet them! Thus, I prefer artistic portraits that are well done and display character. I don't know about everyone else, but when I think of a real companion or friend I don't think of them with whatever 'hat' they happen to be wearing (unless it's a distinct part of who they are to me), I think of them as they are naturally. You could stick Garrick in a full suit of plate armor and close the visor, but he'd still be a clueless pretty boy underneath, and that is what his portrait displays.

Implementing too much realism takes away from the fun experience of a fantasy adventure. There's always the example of why you never have to tell your heroes to stop a couple times a day to relieve themselves; it's expected that they can manage their own bodily functions without input from the player (and off camera). I'm the type of person who prefers mundane tasks be relegated to comedy or only brought up when relevant to characterization. E.g. friendly jabbing if a certain character ate some bad food and is slowing down the part with his "frequent stops." Or if a character who is all posh, not accustomed to adventuring, delights at the idea of bathing upon returning to civilization, etc. But I don't want to regulate my characters hunger, bowels or hygeine (I know you didn't suggest all of those, but I find them of similar monotony), so I vote no management of food quality or starving to death.

I've noticed that many of the people who want clearly labeled quest items say they will "just check a walkthrough anyway," if this feature isn't implemented. I say, good on you: play the game how you want and use any external resources that you desire to have fun. But, what is the option for people who don't want clearly labeled quest items? Pretend they aren't in a special tab or colored gold? There's no easy fix like checking a walkthrough or a "quest item list" for people who want to figure out the purpose of an item by the means of their characters' exploration/experimetation and with their own logic and rationality as a player interacting with the game world. As far as checking a walk through breaking immersion, are hints external and directed specifically at the player (not the characters) any different?

This is an interesting question. I had similar feelings with Mass Effect, probably because there was a definitive and linear story progression. It made no sense for my party (some of which have no more obligation to be with me after the story) to continue going on adventures after the end. Or worse, when the "extra" adventure was supposed to occur temporally between the beginning and end of the game. In BG I didn't have that feeling; there's no particular reason my group would want to stop adventuring simply because I finished my goal. The BG story was ultimately centered on the protagonist and his personal story; it felt epic, but in a different sense than "I'm Shepard and I'm going to save the world." epic. It speaks to a different type of story that the possibility of continued or alternate adventures exist after or during the main game. That it is an epic personal story, compared to a grandiose impersonal story.

I'm honestly surprised how many people like me there really are; I thought we were a dying breed. I told myself not to get my hopes too high, but alas, being one to enjoy life, they've already skyrocketed... On the topic of romance, I really hope the writers do as good of a job as they did in BG2. I personally liked Aerie, I thought she was incredibly well written for the type of person that she was. But, even though I didn't enjoy Jaheira or Viconia as much, both of them were handled maturely and with the delicate touch that romance should, and I could certainly enjoy them from a quality stand point. Warm fuzzy feelings for all!

I admit, it's nice to see so many people want a new infinity engine game. I can't even describe how many memories I have of wandering the coasts with my party of Aerie, Minsc, Jan and Edwin. How many random crazy things happened in my adventures with Xzar, Tiax, Shar-teel and Biff the Understudy. I feel warm and fuzzy inside. Well, maybe not fuzzy. But definitely warm. Or at least above room temperature. Definitely above room temperature. Inside. Edit- If there's a new Love and Happiness goal, I claim complete credit for the intellectual genesis and later evolution.

A day (or in this case a few minutes) spent bringing a smile to someone's face is a day well spent! Oh. A fellow philosopher? Pleased to meet you!