Pshaw

I know what you're getting at but honestly there's got to be better ways to reinforce this besides making saves take forever. The simplest would be to simply not allow saving of any kind in combat. At the very least it would ensure that you need to play a battle out completely every time you reloaded. I'd also limit auto-saves to when you change major zones not entering and exiting buildings or different sections of dungeons. Beyond that, as a frequent saver myself, I say just let it be. I think the best way you can make constant saving not be the solution to getting a perfect game is to have your characters choices ripple out into later parts of the game. Even if you're a constant saver if killing a bandit chief early in the game means you'll be targeted by cartel assassins later which kill off a random companion wouldn't be salvageable if it happened 10+ hours of gameplay later. You'd have to live with that choice. Now this is a bit harder to implement and obviously it can't be done for everything but I think it's the best way to prevent constant saving and reloading for perfect results while not impeding your ability to save and stop playing at anytime.

I love a good JRPG but I must say that this last console generation has let me down a bit. My favorite by far was valkyria chronicles both for it's art direction and fun tactical combat. The story was just good but not amazing. Eternal Sonata was also great stylistically and the combat was a nice change of pace but personally I felt like the ending rushed out no where and I was left dissatisfied with it story wise. I admit I haven't gotten around to Xenoblade Chronicles yet but nothing else really seemed worth the money when it released so I've barely played any JRPGs this generation. Really I'd love to see more tactical RPGs on consoles. I feel like I need to go out and get a Vita of 3DS to play the majority of good JRPGs, tactical or otherwise. I never really understood why Nintendo and Sony didn't allow you to play these games via download on their systems since they lose money on the hardware end of portables anyway so letting us download them on a console would at least help boost software sales for these titles.

I always loved this site. You can't go wrong with food porn that has a great narrator.

Just wanted to drop back into this topic and say that modding it in isn't really an answer to everyone's problems like some seem to be suggesting. If so then it would be equally reasonable to say that anti-romancers can mod out the romances and add all the bromances and extra side quests for the companions they want. In the end this isn't a replacement for the type of professional work Obsidian can put out and everybody knows it. To be honest I almost never use content related mods in any games I've bought because the quality of the content just isn't on par with the games original content. Usually if I get mods at all they're just balance/bug related. So please don't pretend it's somehow a fair compromise saying that it can be modded in after the fact. If that was the case all obsidian would need to do is release a tool set instead of a game and everybody would be happy because hey, you can make all the content you want.

Diablo 3 is a fixed view and still allows you to zoom in. I'd hope that a fixed zoom with no rotation will be added to the game but I can understand if it's meant to stand up at a particular viewing distance and doesn't hold up as well up close. So if such a feature never makes it in I won't mind. That said I find it surprising people are against it being fixed isometric when that was pretty much what they campaigned on, if it bothers you at all you really shouldn't have kick started. It would be like coming in at this point and wishing PE was a point-n-click adventure title. I'll also say that I believe that 2D hand made graphics stand up better over time than fully rendered 3D environments. I can't overlook the blocky feel of NWN or Morrowind or FF7 when I replay them. Sure the games aren't unplayable by any means but it certainly bothers me more than when I start up Fallout 2, Odin Sphere, or Diablo 2. Those games look a little dated as well but not to the degree any 3D game older than 5 years do. Simply put 3D has a shorter shelf life on graphical fidelity in my eyes. Dragon Age wasn't awful looking but if I go back and replay it and Diablo 3 10 years from now I know that Dragon Age will be showing its age far more than Diablo 3. Because of this I'm glad they're going with hand painted backgrounds with a touch of 3D objects and characters on top of that.

I'd honestly love to see almost all of these things in a game. I would just much rather see them in a Turn-based game. I feel like too much strategy and modifiers in a real time with pause system gums up the works and make things overly frustrating. At some point in RTWP you have to give over the AI unless you just want to be pausing and handing out new orders every 10 seconds. If you give over to the AI in a system like you've described it's a recipe for frustration when your companions just don't do what you want. So while I certainly want all of these things I just don't know if I want them in PE. Or at least I don't think I'd want all of them in PE at the same time, maybe just a couple would keep it simple enough for the combat style. I certainly would love for AoE to be blocked by objects as I feel it can be a bit too strong in most RPGs.

Honestly I always thought that Paladin was class stuck between Warlord and Cleric. More to the point anything you wanted to do as a paladin you could generally do as one of those other classes. Want to be an inspiring charismatic warrior who helps those in need? Just play a warlord like that. Want to be an instrument of your gods beliefs on the field of battle? Just make a cleric. Granted if you want both you have to be a paladin but that just seemed like a pretty narrow niche to fill. So I would say if your game allows for your priests/clerics to get into the thick of battle paladin's aren't really needed in that holy warrior type way. PE seems to be going in that direction to me.

The only thing I find funny is that for all the people who are claiming beast like races are out of place they seem to have no problem with the bestiary in fantasy games. Gnolls, Driders, kobolds, minotaurs, wereanimals, yanti, umberhulks, ettercaps, merfolk, kuo-toa, sahuagin, rakshasa, lizard-men, slaad, naga, troglodytes, mindflayers, dragonborn, any half demon/celestial with wings, horns or a tail. These things all exist in fantasy worlds without upsetting the feel of the world but if you can be one as a player race it's all, 'whoa, whoa, whoa what lazy and world breaking design for furries to fap to.' Fantasy worlds are pretty varied in their races and have plenty of beast races albeit they're generally regulated to the roll of monsters. I personally don't see what wrong in having a bit of visual variety in terms of player races.

I usually go caster for my first playthrough of just about anything. So I'm thinking I'll go Priest/Mage/Cypher in that order of likelihood. Then I'll go a rogue/monk/ranger next time around.

Personally I'd like for elves to become dryads when depicted in fantasy. I'd want them to not just be pointy eared humans in tuned to nature but be part of the forest itself. It also gives a reason for them to live long live as they do since trees are already fairly long lived. So I'd like to see them more plant-like in nature. If that's not something the Devs feel like doing I'd love for them to be a bit 'darker' in their elfy ways like the elves in Lorwyn from MTG. Here is a brief description of them from the Wizards webpage, "If you think you know elves, you might have to reevaluate it all while you're here in Lorwyn. Although these elves live in forests and interact with nature just like other planes' elves do, their attitude and outlook are very different. Lorwyn elves are obsessed with beauty and perfection; social status and societal power are entirely determined by physical looks. These elves are not afraid to twist nature into more beautiful shapes of their choosing, and they claim complete ownership over all that is beautiful, even sentient beings. The worst thing any being can be is ugly, and elves, in their arrogance, rarely (if ever) see other races as anything but hideous. In fact, the ugly, known as eyeblights to the elves, are shunned at best, and at worst are actively hunted, enslaved, even killed with the potent toxin moonglove." I also like how the lorwyn elves look:

I wouldn't mind having a tracker for their posts much like Blizzard has implemented on their forums. I don't think we need to know which topics they're lurking in though.

I personally would like diablo 3 level gore. You get the flying corpses and dismemberment but it's not excessively gorey. You get blood stains on the ground but they fade fairly quickly. Also you don't get bloodstains on your characters. No offense to DA:O as much as I got that they were trying to make that game darker and more realistic with the inclusion of blood spattered character it came of totally juvenile. Mainly I would say that more blood and guts doesn't make the game more mature or gritty. In truth it has the opposite effect where it's pandering to kids (or at least feels that way) who want excessive amounts of gore and detracts from the overall feel of the game. I don't need an RPG version of mortal kombat.

I would reload, I'm a completionist and letting party members die falls into something I don't let happen. Even in Fallout 2 I wouldn't let party members I hated die. As far as the quests go I don't mind the idea of death quests. I think they add flavor. But if adding death quests did mean less living quests I'd have to go with live side quests. Now if we're just talking about giving you access to a quest that is available if that member had lived but just starting the chain at their death rather than a conversation in camp one night I'm all for it. Then you don't miss out on a quest by leaving party members alive nor do you miss what I imagine to be that companions most important quest if they die.

To restate from another thread I like Beast-like races. Mainly I like to have races that are distinct from humans rather than just humans with pointy ears or different color skin. I don't think 'antros are lazy design' anymore than I think halflings are. One is a shrunk down human, one is a bipedal (usually) animal. The things that make the design lazy are the implementation of the race in the game world not the look of the race itself. I prefer a few beast races for the sake of variety in addition to the fact that to me it just seems more plausible that in a world filled with all sorts of fantastical monsters that the only civilizations to have risen are not all populated by hairless apes with very slight variations. That said I wouldn't ever want more than 2 or 3 beast races in a given game anymore more than that is just too much.

I love having advantages and disadvantages. Fallout did this pretty well and I'd love to see something similar be repeated. I prefer that disadvantages and advantages be totally separate however. I don't like it when they're tied in together, like 1 option that says hits harder but moves slower. Maybe I want to do a strong character that moves fast and would rather take a disadvantage related to social skills. So to obsidian I can only ask, please, please, please include disadvantages and advantages but preferably don't make them tied together and let us pick and choose which ones we'd like from both categories.

Why is this a problem? Surely you don't complain about games that have nothing but humans. While I can't speak for Betraytheworld I personally I dislike when fantasy/sci-fi games have only humans for a racial option. As much as I love Fallout2 I would have loved to have access to ghouls, mutants, and robots as playable characters. In fantasy games where their are completely distinct races (as opposed to ghouls/mutants having once been human) it seems a bit bland for every race to look like a human variant. But why do you dislike only humans? You can get plenty of variety just by introducing unusual cultures. They have already announced multiple races, so are you looking for wierdness? The problem for fantasy then is that oddball races start to make the game too sci-fi like. Or maybe you're just looking for player characters with special powers? I just like visual variety. You're right in that differing cultures from the same race and provide plenty of change, I just prefer those distinction to also have a noticeable difference in silhouette as well. I'm not looking for weirdness or oddballness, just a noticeable difference beyond big, short, different color skin, and pointy ears. If you can't tell the difference between a human and another race based on their silhouette I think they could stand to be a bit more different. It's certainly not a make or break issue it's just simply my preference. Also as far as special powers go I think all races should only have minor game play differences between them. I think people should pick a race they like not just the one that goes with their class the best. I'd certainly rather all of these differences (if included in the game) be non-combat related.

This is a single player game. So since how you play won't effect anybody else I don't see why they shouldn't allow for respecing for those who want it. I also think it should probably just be a console command though and not worked into the game. Preferably the console will be enabled by default so players don't need to edit files in notepad and all that junk first.

While I don't mind seeing these sorts of dungeons I think an easy solution is to take the dungeons into the open air. Give us outdoor ruins, magic strong holds that aren't just another tower (WoW The Oculus), or interesting zones like the underwater section of BG2. Hell let us do a 'dungeon' right in the city streets with a gang war, riot or siege. I also really enjoy dreamworld type dungeons such as the painting from oblivion. We're used to little battles in the outdoors but rarely do we get that dungeon feel from them so I think they'd make a nice change of pace from always entering a castle of going underground. Alternitively let those underground dungeons be something other than dark and claustrophobic. Give us glowing crystals or open into an underground oasis of sorts. We can keep things in caves, sewers and crypts so long as they aren't all just bare stone.

While I like some randomization in games I cannot think of anyplace I'd want in a game like this aside from random encounters while traveling. These battles / events should probably be the only random events but even so I imagine they'll be randomly selected from a large pool of encounters which were hand crafted. Honestly for re-playability in this game I want to see mutually exclusives quests and factions. To me these add more replay value than a dungeon being re-arranged the next time I play. If I'm joining the thieves guild as a faction I should not also be able to join the city watch. I'd rather see a handful of factions that I need to choose 1 or the other and then need to replay the game in order to access that content than randomized dungeons and the like. The same goes with quests maybe an NPC offers you 2 different routes to complete an objective so depending on which you choose you miss out on the next 2-3 follow up quests from choosing 1 branch over the other. This could also carry into your party members. if you must go investigate a series of murders at the request of 1 companion only to find that the murderer is somehow related to another (family or close friend) you then have to choose which companion to side with and either kill or drive off the other one. It's choices like these that I'd like to see in the game because I think they add to replay-ability without compromising game quality in anyway like randomization sometimes can. I also find that for the most part randomization has very little effect on how you play where as having to make a choice that prevents you from seeing other paths will effect your story and character in a more meaningful way.

I tend to do it by the book - but if needed I'll adjust the starting level (if I'm GM) if needed. For example in D&D I like to start at level 3 but in Shadowrun I find you get too many build points so I knock them down some. I will say that I also enjoy building my characters around negative traits. So having the starting system be restrictive enough that it rewards you for taking negative perks is always something I'm interested in.

This is a bit old but there was a topic on this at one point. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61883-characters-not-in-party-gaining-experience/ I don't know these forums well enough to know if it's better to comment on old threads or start new ones though. Personally I think party members should all be on the same level regardless of whether or not they're in your party. If you're ever in a section where you're forced to take an underleveld companion it's an awful experience. I think the fact that their gear tends to grow outdated is a good enough way to keep them from being as powerful as the characters you always take with you.

I personally enjoyed games like dragons lair and braindead 13. Yes they were all about hitting the correct button to live then going on and doing so over and over again but it was still fun to figure out the order to complete things in and how to survive. Now the modern shooters is a bit of an unfair example since those single player campaigns are really intended for added value for the multiplayer. That is the space where those games really take place and there they succeed at being a good game play experience admirably. When playing multiplayer there is no script what so ever and the match is different every time. You are right that the modern expectations for presentation (graphics and full voice acting) is limiting the scope of game worlds more and more. However that's not strictly a bad thing. Those that escape this downfall are mostly sandbox type games like GTA, Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim and the like where they can give plenty of things to do but without much meaning behind those things. Personally I'd rather replay a cinematic game like Uncharted than wander around in Red Dead once I've completed the story skinning coyotes for achievement points. Even if your path of available options is narrow in a game like Uncharted saying it isn't a game really isn't accurate. It's not a wide open game certainly but is it really all that different than playing a top down shoot em up or a side scrolling adventure game from the 90s? You didn't have any freedom in those games either beyond who to shoot first and jumping, ducking, which weapon upgrade you want, but they were certainly still games. I guess in the end my point is more choices doesn't always equal a better game. 3D Dot Heroes is basically Zelda a Link to the Past with the addition of levels and character customization and crafting but it all becomes a bit incoherent when played. Sometimes simpler and more streamlined is the better game not the one overflowing with choice just for choices sake.

While I sadly don't play or run anything anymore I always played Vampire the Masquerade even once Requiem was released. I know my brother is currently running a 2nd edition D&D game right now with some of his friends. I have another friend who only plays 3/3.5. In the end if you really like a rule set there is no reason to go to a new system you like less. So long as some people prefer the old system people will always play em.

I've been involved with a 4 GM game once, while I was not a GM myself my brother was. However this was a Vampire the Masquerade game where every player or group of players got their own sessions with one of the GMs to prevent the players from obtaining OOC information. The were also I think something like 12 or so players in this game. I think it worked lovely for a game like VtM because everybody was out to screw each other over so the secrecy helped us never know what everybody else was up to at any given time. This is the most successful multi-GM game I was ever a part of. Otherwise I find that 1 GM is always in more of a assistant role or fills in when the main GM can't make it. So since you seem to be going with separate parties I think you'll be able to do some great interactions. Personally if it was me I'd set them on the same task but with different clues so that they each keep missing each other and thinking somebody else is working against them. Then in the end (if they don't kill each other first) you can bring both groups together for a climactic ending over coming some challenges that would crush either group by themselves.

Well even in our own world while we have been steadily raping the planet there are still many idyllic landscapes around. I'd assume that with the whole world not being industrialized that it wouldn't have been stripped bare. So I guess I just want it to make sense. If I'm in an area right outside the city I'd expect it to be mostly farm land with scattered houses. If I'm in the middle of nowhere I think things should be bit more untouched. If there is a reason for an area to show the hand of man then by all means include it, otherwise I think it would make more sense to for things to be left wild. Whether that means lush forest, barren plains, swamps, grand mountains, or rocky coasts.