Christliar

Good gameplay and combat can cover a lot of flaws and I think it's the most important thing to get right. I couldn't complete Anachronox because of the sloggish and tedious combat even though I loved the premise, the characters (seriously, you have a PLANET as a companion) and the story. It should be fun to play is the point I'm trying to make. You need a sense of progession as well, like in D&D you get more attacks per round, more spells per day or more interesting feats. Leveling should be something exciting, not just a flat number increase on your dmg or stats. (Examples: DA:O, NWN and all D&D based games, Diablo 2 (maybe), etc) The story is a bit hit and miss to be honest. You can't just have a good *story*, you need interesting characters to go through that story with and this is more important than the ultimate conflict. There are only so many permutations of X is trying to kill you/them/ALL PEOPLE EVER, but the journey to that destination is what makes any medium memorable and worth experiencing. Hamlet isn't interesting because Hamlet is trying to avenge his father and expose Claudius, it's the interactions between the characters and the arcs and spiritual journeys (to be or not to be...) they go through. The characters should interact with each other and you, they should have their own goals and ambitions and we should get to know them throughout the game. (Examples: Planescape Torment, KoToR 2, Beyond Good and Evil, etc) Graphics aren't important, but the aesthetics are. Aesthetics are what make a location and world memorable. The world should look like it is a single world and not just chaotically pieced together ideas like many games seem to fall into. Lighting, vibrant colors and interesting design can add a lot to the atmosphere of a piece. Fitting music should also be employed and can heighten the sense of wonderment or tension. Aesthetics should evoke feelings of fondness and in a few years nostalgia. Bioware games tend to exhibit many of these traits. (Examples: Planescape Torment, DA:O, Beyond Good and Evil, Mass Effects, The Longest Journey and Dreamfall, etc.) I've always looked at the choice and consequence dichotomy a bit skeptically, because it can detract from the idea you are trying to persue. Imagine a musical piece where you can shift motifs, passages, keys etc. whenever you felt like it. It would be ruined both musically and philosophically and the sense of inner progression is lost completely. This type of thing should be employed only if it serves the narrative purposes and doesn't feel disjointed from the rest of the game. It doesn't necessarily add to the overall experience, but it can detract and it most certainly will if used badly or incompletely. I can't actually think of a game that has its very core or narrative shifted because of a few dialogue options that present "choices", so I can't give an example of a good one. The most successful attempts are those which are subtle and are small enough that don't really mess with the progression all that much. (Examples: Mass Effects, DA:O...and that's about it.) In conclusion I will say that a classic is a thing that transcends its release date and is a universal concept that resonates with people forever. Games may not have such a colossal impact on the artistic and creative world (yet), but it has the potential to do so. We call Baldur's Gate, Doom and all these old games classics, but such talk is mostly based on rose-tinted goggles and nostalgia. Mainly because they age and do not have the same jaw-dropping allure now. I kinda went off-topic there, but the thing I'm trying to say is that a great game, a great medium in general, combines many things and is made with skill, knowledge and experience. I trust the guys at Obsidian have all these qualities in their chosen field and will deliver a great experience

The only thing an evil playthrough needs is to not be nonsensical in a I-just-killed-an-orphan-with-his-dead-kitten way and it'll be fine. I suppose I could mention Kreia, but she was never truly evil, more egomaniacal, perhaps, in a non-obvious way.

Dragon Age: Origins did something interesting with new playthroughs - after getting a certain achievement you unlocked powerful items that you get in your inventory at level 1 at each new start. Although starting at a higher level isn't bad I'm neutral towards it.

Dragon Age: Origins had it fine, I thought. You can only craft potions, poisons and traps, and in Awakening - runes to upgrade your gear a bit. You were never FORCED or REQUIRED to do any crafting, but the possibility was there and it was useful when you did use them. That would solve the problem with too powerful gear made from crafting which I also think is counter-intuitive 99% of the time.

This is absolutely true and I say let's keep it at dice rolls - it not only is a way to ensure there's a higher chance to do average damage instead of giving the same percentage to do 2 or 12, It is a "cRPG thing" alla BG, IWD etc. It also keeps developers from giving us too many weapons with "1-6 dmg, but lo! this other one does 2-8" unnecessary micromanagement ad infinitum, which in turn shifts the focus from equipment to character building.

The most glaring problem with this is that crits happen regularly and if every crit injures you severely enough for you to go do a quest to restore that part of your body I see it getting tiresome pretty fast. MAYBE a stat reduction for the duration of the BATTLE, but beyond that it's just tedious.

I think bosses should be supported by lore and not just be a random guy having popped out of nowhere. With that said I want the battles themselves to put pressure on the whole party, but not in a pure damage kind of way, because that usually just forces me to manually control the healer for the entire battle (not that I dislike healing, mind you) and spam spells like crazy.

I never understood the unique item problem with identification. If it is UNIQUE and LEGENDARY shouldn't you instinctively know what it is by common knowledge? The random rings and weapons you find are more understandable to not know what they do until somebody figures out what magic it was used to create it. All in all I like identification, because it adds suspense to an item. I like the idea that if you put on an unidentified armor you still get bonuses, they just aren't shown to you (in the description) and if there's an on-use effect it makes sense that you wouldn't know that until you identify it.

Yeah, I got the gist of it in the thread, but I haven't played these. Soooo the kotors and nwns aren't turn based?

You'll have to enlighten me - what is turn based exactly? Is Neverwinter nights turn-based? Are the Kotors turn based? If it's like JRPGs where the characters stand around doing nothing while you choose spells or abilities in a very bloated and badly designed interface then I'm all for real time.

I love the idea. It would make many things clearer and easier to remember. Would be nice to admire the art in of itself as well.

It's just a hassle to be honest, I prefer a no ammo approach. I have a different idea in mind for the characters who specialize in archery: Give Archery feats that transform the default ammo ala Arcane Archer's Enhance Arrow. That way we can have elemental arrows without the need to constantly buy more at every store. It can be one feat only with a toggleable Ice, Fire, Earth etc. enhancements. If you prefer status effects like daze or stun they can make a different feat for that.

Wasn't the Disciple in Kotor 2 an example of this? I've totally forgotten what his story was, so I may be wrong. Anyway... It would be interesting, yeah. Don't let them just blindly copy what you are doing though, they should have a personality of their own. In time they can shift a bit towards your own morals. Clinginess is a thing I want to avoid as well.

If you could just go and kill whichever gods you fancied, would they actually be gods in the first place? I think there should be a defined explaination of what a god is in PE before we can speculate tbh.

It was very funny in NWN, because the best archer was a fighter/wizard/arcane archer ;d I agree that rangers get shafted very often, they should probably be given more synergies with their pets and have unique archery feats, but not to the degree that they are far and beyond any other attempt at making archers.

The best icons I've ever seen are from Guild Wars 1, they were very visually distinctive from one another while at the same time being quite fitting for the class.

Then that brings up the question of what exactly is a "god". Is a normal person who amasses absurd amounts of power a god? About Gann - maybe you are right, I haven't played MotB in a while and I might be misremembering.

The thing is would atheism even make sense in a world where the gods actively affect the world and possibly physically manifest themselves? Gann (MotB) was very unusual and probably doomingly stubborn, because he was STANDING IN FRONT OF KELEMVOR and he STILL wouldn't accept that gods are real. That didn't make any sense to me. I suppose in PE you can choose to not worship any gods, but if they are proven 100% to exist atheism wouldn't be a logical stance.

if you CAN be a lich and a hero, that will present many interesting character arcs and story twists. I want necromancy done right though, not the D&D model of 1 skeleton/zombie/mummy/vampire at a time which goes against the whole idea in the first place.

Simple, yet fantastical is the best course of action for me. I wouldn't mind seeing elemental effects on weapons too, like fire or lightning. The armors are a bit tougher, but the same approach could work.

It's unnecessary and just adds trivial things most people wouldn't want to be doing.

Something should be done about low level magic classes as well, but I heard they are implementing a cooldown sort of deal with them. I'll say it anyway though - in all D&D based games low level magic users were very disadvantaged, because they could only memorize like 2 magic missiles, they'd use them up on the first fight and would need to rest. That was quite a hassle and problematic.

I think BG1 had it about right, although SLIGHTLY more magical items wouldn't go amiss, something like 2-3 people in the party (including you) should have all slots filled with magical armor while the rest have 2-3 slots of mundane gear and everything else magical. Tripping over magical items isn't something I find fun or engaging, because then the items lose their charm. If it's a loooong game I want to ruin a perfectly good pair of underpants when I find my first magic item ;d then the rest should be rare and spread out, but not like the first one. I also don't want to go into ridiculous numbers by the end like 10k+ crit, that's just absurd and unnecessary.

I hate to be quoting myself, but I'd really like to see what people think of this. Even if the classic model is a 6 man group there's no need to do EVERYTHING the old way, something can be improved with our future space technology ;d As I said, that way we have 2 (genuinely) unique playthroughs, 8 characters being more than enough and increased need for tactical thinking. To add something different - I think all characters should be well developed, not have 2 or 3 be "fillers" or "just there", so 8 is a nice well-rounded number which isn't too low or too high. It would've been nice to have companions of all classes, but it isn't really necessary and it will just drag down all of them if there isn't enough time to flesh them all out.

I suppose it would be frowned upon or people will just be killing each other for the slightest reasons and every insult, perceived or otherwise. That would also be boring ;d "The harshest criticism an artist could receive is to be told his work is boring." About cardinal sins - I really have no idea; I was thinking maybe of someone trying to stop the cycle of reincarnation as a whole, but that's too obvious and it's practically the same as trapping of souls.