SKahn

A character who did every side quest should finish the game at a higher level than a character that just did the main story.

To me, the vancian system is such a pain to use, that I generally avoid casters. I would have one healer, and one offensive caster for those encounters that absolutely need elemental damage, or AOE. Preferably these would be the same character. But otherwise having a fighter, rogue or ranged attacker was much more enjoyable. Having to open up a spell-book, prepare and rest for so often breaks up the gameplay in a way that just isn't tolerable.

Except that you can't really make persuade or sneak "harder" other than to just increase the failure rate. So all that would do is to then force you into combat. That's probably the best answer actually. There's no point in having a massively increased combat difficulty if you are going to simply avoid said combat.

I really dislike most insects, personally. When I was younger, every so often there would be a big spread of insects in National Geographic, and I couldn't bring myself to touch the page. I had to turn the page with a paper clip, or some other type of implement. I'd be fine with excluding spiders from the game. Not because of phobias, but because they are badly overused, boring and implausible (as previously explained)

Other: Take some of that money and hire Mark Ryden to do the portraits. But srsly, BG style please. 3d faces look awful and would bring the overall quality down considerably. Drawn portraits have the potential to add tons of feeling and personality to the game. it would be nice to have an armored and an injured version, but ultimately I don't really care about that a much as I care about them having "character". (Click to enlarge)

Your origin quest could come at nearly any point in the game in the form of a flashback story as told to another character, or perhaps a dream/hallucination, etc. I'm not saying that is a good idea, but it's an idea.

I have always preferred turn based combat, but my understanding was that it was already decided. ( I can certainly live with either. After all, I donated already knowing it would be RTwP)

Actually I can see OE putting this in as a joke or easter egg. Meet random adventuring party who don't have a clue what they are doing and will get slaughtered very quickly without any advice from the player. That would be hysterical. Great idea. Even when I was young I hated the massive final fantasy sword/guns. Part if the reason I supported this game is because their previous work has been intelligent and restrained in those ways. And part of the reason is that They are actually gamers, making what they like. I used to think that the age of games like PS:T and BG was gone. But now we get to see what they can do with modern tech. I don't know how I'm going to wait.

This must be the obsessive compulsive in me but I always enjoyed diablo inventetris. I also always wanted to be the one who packed the luggage into the car before a family trip... so... perhaps I'm not normal... Whether or not they're the same size, items definately need graphical icons. Skyrim's listventory almost made me quit playing.

Totally agree. If you need to reduce the power of rings to balance additional slots, that'd be fine. I'd extend this even further and say I'd prefer more armor slots in general: shoulder armor, grieves... bow tie, cummerbund... You know

As cool as many of these ideas are, it sounds like most of you are engaging in WILDLY unrealistic fantasies about the kind of combat mechanics to expect in this game. Some of these ideas: factoring in fatigue, encumberance, injury and training into the effectiveness of an attack; then factoring in the relative reach of the weapons, and the way the combatants are holding their weapons; choosing which part of the body to attack; having armor effectiveness based on their actual physical properties rather than simple numbers; having armor providing different degrees of protection to different parts of the body; Not to even begin to mention the difficulty of a comparable level of detail in ranged weapons and magic. Some of this stuff would be possible... difficult, but possible, in a game where this was the primary focus. But we are going to be controlling six characters, small on the screen, through a complex narrative. I am expecting some advancement in the combat mechanics from the last IE games, but this thread has left reality far far behind. Sorry.

Personally, I have a difficult time resisting the urge to "min/max" my character. So I am strongly in favor of linking xp to accomplishments, rather than simply killing or similar actions. I should never feel tempted to kill an NPC that my character is friendly with just for the xp. I should never feel temped to pick the lock on a door to which I already have the key. This can be taken too far though. If you make xp so scarce that it basically only comes from story progression, that's no good either. Then it starts to feel like character growth is scripted and feels much less rewarding. You want to make sure that a completionist play through grants significantly greater xp than a quick play through. The way to do so that is to give small/moderate xp rewards for tons of optional actions. I bluff my way into a tavern kitchen?... 5xp. I listen my companion tell the story of her childhood and gained her trust?... 8xp The gameplay degeneration mentioned in the opening post is real.