Game_Exile

I like the idea of having "random encounters" like these, with the difficulty of the encounters progressing through the length of the game. Putting the player in combat regularly can help to center the balance of all the other strategic components throughout the length of the game, so you can have something along these lines: There are all kinds of things that the devs can (and should) do with these "random" or "generic" encounters, like putting them on night/day cycles, having appropriate kinds of monsters spawning after completing a portion of the game where you get new abilities, resources, etc., or having enemy ecnounters appear on timers. And everything should be appropriate to the story, of course (and vice versa, of course). As far as "travel" goes, anything would be better than completely non-interactive representation of space, like in BG2. The BG1 wilderness was pretty sparse, but wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the walk speed wasn't so damn slow.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post, man. I'm glad you liked it. Yes, but some "setups" of "factors" and "equations" are far more interesting than others. Long range timers add another dimension to how the game works and how you think about it, like going from algebra to calculus. My question about whether or not you should have a timer on the hours leading up to the siege is a rhetorical question. The only reason why the devs wouldn't put a timer on it is if they couldn't find a way to properly balance the timer with everything else in the game. But that's why they should design everything with timers and time limits in mind from the very beginning instead of just slapping them onto canned story scenarios; so that timers and everything else work out to be interesting and cool, instead of uninteresting and lame. And the reason why your posts are so "wordy" is because they are full of stupid BS. E.g. Your attempt at analysis in response to my rhetorical question about the "siege" was doomed from the very start, because you are just pretending like you have some general point to make about timers when, in fact, you do not. Here is the shining jewel: Yeah, thanks for telling us what things look like in the opposite of reality. If you haven't realized already, the major benefit of timers compared to other strategic "devices" (meaning strategic components in the context of the game's "story") is that they necessarily affect everything the player does outside of pauses. In any particular instance the significance of the timer can appear to be marginal or great, but there is always some impact, and it will always make sense for it to have an impact.

Squeaky, thanks for your sympathetic remarks. A checkpoint system where you can quit+autosave any time but only reload from checkpoints will solve your interruption problem. And if you want to experiment with abilties and strategies, I don't see why you would have to be able to reload right before each fight in order to do it, unless you want every fight to turn into a trial and error run. Combat and enemy encounters should be designed so that the player would have to figure out how certain abilities or combinations of abilities work in order to deal with them. The demands of enemy encounters would be simple and varied at first, then go on to be more and more complex as you learn, so that you will have to properly use more and more of your characters' combat abilities as they increase. This should go for most of the game's strategic components, even outside of combat. Later challenges will demand that the player bring your knowledge and experience from earlier in the game, where there was maybe some more room for trial and error, but still some demand to learn the ins and outs of the resources available to you. This is the kind of "difficulty mode" people want (even if they don't know it yet). BTW, the above demand is one of the major reasons why the game should be balanced for the predesigned party NPCs, rather than for multiple player generated party members which will all be availble at the beginning of the game (if this will even be an option). It will be pretty much impossible to balance for so much variability in party composition, and still have good progression in the complexity of the game's challenges, at least in combat. Honestly, the more I hear about "options" and "customIzation", the more it sounds like an excuse for the devs not to properly design and balance the game. To be more clear, my issue with free saving and reloading is that it is a **** mechanic that is impossible to balance for. Both design and balance ultimately refer to the same thing, only with balance you are approaching the game more from the player's perspective, with an emphasis on "challenge".

No, when I meant integrated with the story, I meant there should be sensible story reasons for why you can die and come back to life only a certain number of times. Meaning also that I am referring to "continues" without reloading, the way you described it in your starting post: And if you have "continues" that reload from a last save, then it is NOT practically the same thing as ironman mode, it is completely different. Free saving and reloading isn't represented in the story of any game because the free save and reload mechanic is just plain retarded. Think about how you would represent that in your story, lol. And to clear up any confusion, I do not object to having "continues" in the game so long as they are integrated with the story and setting, and I don't really see the need to integrate it into the story as an objection in itself. Dying and coming back to life, imo, can actually work out to be a really cool and beneficial addition to the game's strategic components and story/setting. What I want to suggest with all this is that it would be much cooler if having "continues" wasn't an optional mode, but rather a well integrated strategic component, where you can do things like increase the number of "lives" you get with certain risky actions/decisions/quests/whatever (like 1ups in Super Mario Bros.). You just have ironman mode and the "continues" become practically invisible (meaning invisible as a game mechanic, and obviosly much more visible in the story).

I know they will have a free save and reload system as the default option. I ignore it when I talk about how a game will be designed and balanced, because obviously you can't balance any sort of challenge in parts of the game where you can save and reload any time, unless you assume the player won't save or reload any time. In which case, you are balancing for a checkpoint system which you won't even implement (which is retarded, but retardations like this are all too common). Again, getting rid of the other extra modes and having a challenging game with one serious optional checkpoint mode would be OK with me. It's not just whether it is easy or bonecrushing hard. It's also a matter of 1) making everything fit the story and setting, and 2) having long term strategic challenges that make more of the setting and story outside of combat scenarios more interesting. This is a bad idea because, first or all, autosaves will not be well balanced, or it is anyway unlikely that they will be. But more importantly, when a player has a challenge in front of him he is searching for all available ways to overcome it, and save/reload will almost always be the most obvious, most ("mentally") energy efficient way to do so. Pretty much every time the player encounters any hint of difficulty or frustration, he has to use a lot of blunt discipline to keep from saving and reloading, or else he will simply turn parts of the game into short trial and error segments. This is important, because, in the context of the game (and its setting/story), the player is always looking for the most efficient ways to get good results, not looking for a "challenge" per se. So if you want meaningful challenge that supports your setting/story, and not contrived challenge that hurts it, you will not force the players to do what amounts to picking a difficulty/challenge option every time they are doing something in the game. Like everything having to do with improving videogames, it is a matter of making your game more immersive, i.e. having things more interesting for the player to "do" and wrapping them in an illusion. Though the "illusion" and "the things that the player does" are actually one and the same, and they appear to be more separate or less separate from each other depending on how well your game's mechanics match it's aesthetics.

I have read it, and I don't like the description of any of the "modes" that they mentioned. None of them look appropriate for a first time playthrough, and they even hint at lazy design. 1) Expert Mode- The main feature here is apparently the elimination of "helper" information for things like skill thresholds and reputation modifiers. What exactly is the point of doing this? Are there going to be enough signs elsewhere so you can 1) figure out how the skill and repuation systems work, and 2) estimate the effect your skill and reputation will effect things without having this helper information? If not, then you are just guessing the entire game, and If you already know what will happen from previous playthroughs, then this mode adds zero challenge. It just sounds like some slapped on BS the devs invented so they don't have to design a game with any strategic depth. And the weighty gold idea sounds like it could be interesting, but only if there is some strategic depth connected to carrying weight. 2) Ironman Mode- I can't help looking at the jump from unlimited saves/reloads to ironman mode without suspecting that the devs are designing the ironman mode for people who know what every choice does, meaning choices in the game will not be very complex (which is, once again, lack of strategic depth). I mean, this game will likely take 20+ hours to complete. At this point, my hopes for it would be higher if, instead, I saw plans for a well designed checkpoint system that is integrated with the story. Of course, for all I know, this game could turn out to be complex, challenging, and well balanced for Ironman Mode, so I don't outright object to this option. 3) Path of the Damned- Throwing in every enemy from every difficulty level is a stupid gimmick. And I hate the attitude behind this mode. It's like they think challenge in a CRPG is just a gimmick, and they don't care about how complex and well designed challenges support the story and setting (and vice versa). I wouldn't be upset if they scrapped all these extra modes and just designed a challenging and complex game with a good checkpoint system.

The problem with continues is how you are going to integrate them with the story. Otherwise, limited continues can work just as well as regular ironman mode. They are practically the same thing. Checkpoints can work any way you design them to. I personally like the idea of balancing the game for a checkpoint system over an ironman mode, because 1) the game is going to last 20+ hours, and 2) it makes it easier (for the devs) to section off and organize the challenges in the strategic part of the game. You can make it so that you save anywhere and only reload from checkpoints. LOL.

The AI director is a good example because you want to give story reasons for the type of "rank" system you are proposing. The major problem is that if the game has some long term strategic depth, it makes more sense to give the player advantages for doing well in the beginning rather than disadvanatages, not to mention this would likely end up hurting the story anyway. I don't like the idea, myself. The devs should try to make a well balanced game, maybe with some advanced difficulty options that are appropriate for first time playthroughs (if they are going to have difficulty options at all).

"Philosophical" and "introspective"? If events happen in a game without the player triggering them in the story, then it is appropriate to have timers on them, especially when the player is able to see how things are before and after the event's effects take place. Since noone is bothering to click on links, I'll quote my example again. See the beauty of it? "Soul power" is not only "philosophical" and "introspective" because you get to talk about souls and death and ****; it also makes the soul and death **** strategically meaningfully and helps to integrate the strategic depth with the game's story. And no, I'm not saying the devs should do exactly this, it's just an example to illustrate how well strategic components and broad main quest goals integrated with the "story" can combine to make the game more interesting and meaningful. And dude, did you really have to quote my entire post to answer that one rhetorical question on the tail end? Lazy bastard.

This is the obvious answer. Balance the game around no reloads, or reloads restricted to checkpoints. If you want long range strategic choices in your game, then it makes sense to have no reloads or checkpoints that are far from each other so you have some semblance of challenge. It's the same reason why older CRPGs like Baldur's Gate didn't allow you to save in the middle of combat. Hopefully in P:E the rest of the game outside of combat will have a lot more strategic depth (which will be connected to combat of course), making exploration/story decisions/etc. more meaningful and interesting.

How timers and time limits should work depend not merely on what kind of story, but on what particular story is being told. Every detail demands a timer of some sort, some more significant or worthwhile to implement than others. It's been mentioned several times in this thread that timers' effects and the way they function should vary according to the demands of the setting/story. A "set, unchanging pace" is only the simplest way a timer can function. It is appropriate to have timers and time limits on "personal" stuff as well. In fact these sorts of timers would probably be much easier to implement (see my example in this post). And it sure as hell will not be only "personal" stuff that happens in the game's story. Unless by "personal" stuff, you mean everything that just "waits" around forever for the player to come mess with it?

Of course everything shouldn't happen on an arbitrary schedule, it should fit the setting/story. And since when has anyone suggested that the game shouldn't pause when you are choosing how to re-outfit characters or deciding what to do with level up points? Did you read my example for the global soft time limt, before you responded to me? There is a reason I linked it. If it fits what is supposed to be happening in the story and setting then it is appropriate. The only events where a lead up timer would be inappropriate are ones that rely on the player character to trigger them, according to the story/setting. "Forcibly convey"? If you want the timer to be significant in the player's decisionmaking, you just make it very likely or certain that the player will find out about the timer and its likely effects early on, so the player can make choices around it. Also, imo, there's no reason why there shouldn't be some semblance of fortune and chance in the game. This might actually make multiple playthroughs of a game worthwhile. And if you are going to the trouble of creating a town for your game, you should probably make it so that there is signficant stuff to do there, whether or not the player stops some bandit attack or whatever. But if the setting can transform in significant ways based on timed events like this, it can make players' choices that much more interesting (and will also require a whole lot more work to design and implement, I know). It is much clearer what you are saying here. But if it is going to take hours and hours for the siege to start, why shouldn't there be an active timer that lasts for those hours?

Cannot agree here. If there is no optional content or an open world, time limits don't make any sense in an RPG. The point of time limits is to establish a sense of urgency, but also to make the player pick and choose exploration and quest opportunities that go well with your character(s). It also discourages rest spamming. If you funnel the player down a linear path in your game and also add a time limit, you prevent the player from making those choices. All that can happen is making the player click faster, which isn't a test of skill in RPGs as they tend not to rely heavily on twitch skills. What do time limits have to do with what will "go well with your character(s)"? For anyone who is not already clear on this, what distinguishes "making meaningful choices" from "picking options" (or customization) is the amount of complexity in the choice. A choice arises when what is going to happen to a lot of otherwise separate things suddenly appears to depend on whether you go one way or the other. Now there are more or less significant choices, but every choice is a crossroads, nonetheless. The choice comes from a complex of stuff that has happened before, and shapes what will happen to that stuff later. A choice is strategic in exactly this sense, and it is this strategic content that gives the choice its significance. While you can make a choice more intelligently or less intelligently, you can still sense the significance of your choices no matter how well you are able to sense exactly how they are significant. So, when you are making a choice, you are always trying to make the right choice, but when you are merely "picking an option", or "customizing", what is right or what is wrong amounts to a matter of superficial taste, barely even feng shui. And while we're on the subject of choices, lets talk about "moral choices" in games. In "real life", serious moral choices are among the most complex choices a person can make. Now, most of what goes into moral choices is completely unconscious, and that is because moral choices are false. See, a moral choice pretends to be about what is good or evil, but it is actually an evaluation of a person's position of power in relation to the rest of the world, i.e. it is a choice about shaping the kind of world that would best suit the perons who is making the "moral" choice. A person's entire life appeaars in a moral choice, so it is no wonder that some people will even sacrifice their lives in moral choices. Now here is why "moral choices" in video games almost always amount to shallow customization, unless they are linked to some strategic content. Because it is about shaping the "game world" that best suits the player's "avatar". But what is the game world, and what, exactly, does the player's avatar have to DO with it? If a game's choices choices are not linked to the strategic part of the game, and they do not affect the main story, then they simply go nowhere, i.e. they are customization. But in "real life", moral choices are about the things that go farthest. You cannot just slap a "moral choice" scenario into the game and expect people to have just the right emotional/symbolic baggage to make that choice resonate, like pornographer's do with sex. There must be complex and long range effects connected to the choices, that are actually IN the game. While a video game playthrough inevitably ends, the world continues, even after we are dead. If you do not want your game's story to be ridiculous, then you should use "moral choices" very carefully and sparingly, and always with the strategic, or "real" consequences of each choice in the forefront, i.e. make it both intelligible and "believable". God, I'm smart. See my example of a soft time limit at the bottom half of this post. Obviously, with global time limits, it's not about frantically getting things done, but about making smart and efficient choices. And why should someone else's siege be activated by the player's avatar? Are you saying that everything in the game should be instigated by the player? What does this have to do with "purposes of realism"? The game should have challenges wherever it is appropriate. This is completely different from what you say elsewhere in your post. Not being prepared for an unforseeable event has nothing to do with a player's competence. But i at least sort of agree with what you are saying here. Only what is your objection "the town was being attacked now, because it just happened after a certain amount of time no matter what"? I don't understand why you think this is silly.

Yeah, you'd like to believe it's just flames, wouldn't you? My posts address this matter in a little more nuance. It is not all black and white, the way you are putting it. This is exactly what many people in this thread have already said. Congratulations on repeating their complaints, and ignoring the only content in the thread (my posts) that examine what is behind them. Not necessarily in every case, but OK if you like. Nope, what you have mentioned is just what is simple enough for you to understand.

First Ocelot, It's a bit much to call something primitive when the renderer behind the images is more complex than real-time 3D engines. I also notice how you have completely ignored my point about not knowing what real-time rendering Project Eternity is going to have, including lighting, animation, filters, real time 3D rendering of characters and objects. Can you say that Project Eternity is going to less complex than Half-Life? No. Is Limbo less complex than Descent? I don't even know what basis you're using to judge. I am talking about the games, not the tools used to create them. A real time 3D engine is part of a 3D game (the major part), and the tools used for pre-rendering the 2D images from 3D ones are not (only the resulting assets are). And 3D environments and dynamic perspectives are more complex than 2D environments and less dynamic perspectives, period. Did I say that Project Eternity, as a whole, would be less complex than Half-Life? That is not even a proper comparison, asshat. You want to tell me Devil May Cry is less complex than any scrolling 2D brawler? And fyi, Half-Life is miles more complex than any 2D fps (can you even remember any?). And Limbo and Descent? Where the hell were you going with these examples, and what does it have to do with whether '2D' is more or less primitive or complex than '3D'? Is Limbo supposedly more complex than Descent because Limbo is in 2D? Is Project Eternity going to be more complex than Half Life because it's backgrounds are in 2D? You are not answering the question you are pretending to answer. But P:E will surely be more primitive than GTA5 and Far Cry 3, for the reasons I have already mentioned. Some games are showing the path to the future, some are not. What is so hard to see about this? You morons are acting like I'm trying to trash P:E, when I'm only stating things that are obviously true about '2D' and '3D' games. Now, Hassat Guess why people use 3D assets "over and over", like you say? Hint: see my quote directly above for the answer. You have not contradicted a single thing I said, so what does it have to do with my being right or not? Idiot.

I dare you to point out exactly where I "advocated" that P:E should have 3D environments. You can't. So what you can do is STFU with your suggesting that I did. And I didn't "pan" or "laud" anything. I just said that 2D is more archaic than 3D, which is obviously true (and that anyone who says it's not is either lying or an idiot, which is also obviously true). Yeah, that's why industry leaders in Valve Software, Epic Games, etc. are backing the Oculus Rift. Because there's no future in it, right? A few more generations, and cost shouldn't even be an issue. So, what? What does this have to do with 2D and 3D? Do you know what the word primitive means? Compare 3D games that are showing the way to the future vs 2D isometric CRPGs, which the devs even intended to be throwbacks to classic games. If one game is obviously more primitive than another, then it is right to call it primitive. That doesn't mean that P:E won't be more worth playing compared to less primitive games. Understand?

Too bad you're not competent enough to explain what you dislike about them.

Of course I don't need your feedback, lol. It doesn't matter to me whether you care about my posts. The main reason I'm arguing with you is so that any person who is truly interested in the topic, and who has a modicum of honesty and intelligence, can browse this thread and see how badly I am pwning you. And then that person will become interested in reading more of what I have to say about the topic, unless he is too sorely butthurt about it (which I doubt of any person who is capable of being honest, at least to themselves). And besides that, argumentation helps to make the more correct statements and opinions clearer, and it does this by making less correct statements and opinions look more false, or more clearly what they are: BS. So it sure as hell does "add to your point", lol. And all the stuff you quoted, besides being true, helps to emphasize my points for people who are maybe less interested, at first, and have not thought through the topic yet. It was already clear to me that you were saying this in your earlier post, except in a far different way (lol, you sneaky little liar). Hiding under the same superficial logic from your Nashkel example, and adding fancy language like "order of things" and "sabotage", frankly, doesn't make your argument any more persuasive for anyone but idiots and tools. And like I was saying before, it's not a matter of having a penalty or not having a penalty, it is a matter of having more or fewer things weighing on your decisions, so that your choices are more or less complex and interesting. I wouldn't be satisfied with the devs just slapping on a time limit, either. And what, exactly, IS the objection here: "whatever doesn't relate in some way to the timer is secondary, and going against this order of things will be penalized", if it is not a STORY objection? Lol, is it because being "penalized" or having an "order of things" = bad? What, exactly, is being "sabotaged" by the timer? Not one ingame objective, but a whole complex of ingame objectives, some more conspicuous than others. That's why global "soft" timers with broad goals are the best way to implement timers. I've already given an example of how this might work in this post. And obviously, if you are a dev, you implement timers in ways that are appopriate for what you are doing in your game. Man, it's all black and white with people like you. Isn't there anyone who wants a really great game out of this, and is interested in seeing how it can be done? Why would anyone even bother posting here if they're just going to hurl some half baked opinion at someone else's half baked opinion? As if there's nothing more to say than the stuff you can already say by checking some option on some opinion polls.

Where did I ever say that P:E should have 3D environments? I said they should take a serious look into perspective effects that were even commonly done on the SNES back in the day. The only thing "pretty terrible" here is your reading comprehension. Wrong, it is archaic in the sense of being primitive or antiquated. Yes, people are still making 2D games, some of which are really good compared to 3D counterparts. But, tell me, why has gaming been dominated by 3D real-time rendered games for over a decade, as you say? It is because 3D engines are way more complex, way more immersive, and offer WAY more possibilities for immersion. Just because every possibility for 2D games hasn't been explored yet, doesn't mean that 2D games somehow have just as much or more future than 3D games. That's BS. We are only 1 or 2 generations away from the arrival of virtual reality headsets , and you still want to say that 2D is not archaic compared to 3D? FFS. Lol, what the hell is this even supposed to mean?

You did not read my posts. It is not black and white. It's not a matter of having a penalty or not having a penalty, it is a matter of having more or less things weighing on your decisions, so that your choices are more or less complex and interesting. I talk about exaclty this in my post on p.3. But you can't just read that section of it. You have to read the entire thing to see what I am saying. That is why I wrote all of it, along with all the elaboration and arguementation that follows on this page. You also need to have some modicum of honesty and intelligence to understand it. Don't agree, see above. [snipped the rest] What don't you agree with? Because what I said about who sets what for the "pace" is not debatable. It is not an opinion. It is FACT. If you think it is wrong then you should tell me what exactly you think is wrong with it, because I am trying, and I see no space at all for disagreement. Your suspicion is utter BS. O RLY?!? Then what were you saying about water chips? Let me quote you again, emphasis added this time. Like usual, I am ****ing spot on with my suspicions.

For the "win/game-over" variety of time limits and timers, a "soft" time limit that with very broad goals, like the one I described in my long post, above, would work great. Your ideas about the effects of timers are right on, and they are echoed by a lot of other posters in this thread.

Well, your posts on 2d view being archaic and your whole point here that boils down to making mostly everything impossible to miss while following the course of the story, show you as someone who is better off with new-age tunnel games ala Mass Effect, FF13 and so on. So I wouldn't expect you to understand why people like just going around the map, "fighting" fog of war. Please don't go around making wild assumptions about what other people enjoy. More BS. You did not read my posts, or you willfully misinterpreted them. I would never, ever advocate "making mostly everything impossible to miss". Having choices in your game necessitates that you "miss" certain things (strategically and storywise). God, the irony is always so thick with these liars. After he says he wants to be able explore everything 100% before he proceeds with the main quest, he goes and tells me that I am the one who wants to make things "impossible to miss". And "fighting" fog of war? Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. When you have all the time in the world, you are not "fighting" anything. If you want to "fight fog of war", why don't you just take a walk around your neighborhood? That would be way more interesting than "exploring" a video game setting where there are no strategic concerns whatsoever. Or is walking around your neighborhood too stressful for you? And how does my post on the 2d view being archaic have anything at all to do with integrating strategic elements with story elements? Idiot.

Utter BS. Read my post right above yours, and the one I wrote on p.3 of this thread. They explain everything. Broad timers and timer effects on main quests are the BEST kinds. The main reason for adding strategic elements like timers is to improve "gameplay quality". It has nothing to do with "realism", except at the very extremes. Unless you are reaching for the 3D free roaming genre with this game, it is inappropriate to even be talking about "realism". In any case, it is not useful from a design standpoint. As for "pace": the pace you explore the gameworld is ALWAYS set by you. And the pace you need to do things in order to win the game or get good results is ALWAYS set by the game. Read the thread. People are annoyed when a game has a pace that only pretends to have challenge, but doesn't really have any challenge whatsoever. Your complaint, I suspect, is actually a story complaint. It has nothing to do with pace except at the superficial level of the story. You should read my posts.

First of all, I am skeptical about your wanting to travel to "useless" areas. If there was no possibility of quest rewards, gear, or combat, then I doubt even the most pedantic completionists would even bother going far off the main quest paths. Now, the problem in this section of BG wasn't the fact that there was a time limit. The problem was that there was all sorts of stuff that was more interesting and more promising (in terms of possible XP and gear rewards) all over the map, like the "powerful" mage's house and the Ulcaster ruins, if I'm remembering correctly. The answer isn't to eliminate time limits on main quests, but to design and balance the limits and their effects so that they are more global. You do this AND you bring all the really big and interesting stuff like the Ulcaster ruins into the main quest story. It kills the story if: 1) You have a bunch of stuff that looks really significant and interesting in the context of the setting, but it has nothing to do with the "main story". The player should never be asking themselves why some side part of the game isn't the main story, or why it isn't at least involved with it. 2) You have a bunch of stuff that is strategically significant, i.e. gear and quest rewards, but it has nothing to do with completing the "main quest". If the player has opportunities to make himself much more powerful or whatever, it a) should appear in the story, and b) should be balanced with respect to the player's long term goals. Look at these two things together and you want A) broader "main" quest goals that fit a wide range of stuff under the umbrella of the story, and B) more central long range logistical elements that are not only strategically signficant, but also "appear" in the setting and story as strategically significant (stuff that's better than tacked-on XP). Here is an example of how a "soft" timer might work. Throughout the game, you have certain sorts of things that give like "soul power" or something. When your "soul power" runs out, your player character dies, but keep in mind that you have many different ways of replenishing your "soul power". The "soul power" interacts with maybe a "light and dark" system that affects your combat abilities and perhaps those of your party members, perhaps including stamina. Lets also say that certain enemies are more susceptible to certain combat abilities or certain incarnations of combat abilities, and buffs, debuffs, etc. are also affected. The "light and dark" system also decides what kinds of "soul power" is more or less nourishing, and is affected by story/quest decisions that the player makes, which will take more or less time or combat, and will yield more or less "soul power" or quest rewards. And there you have it: ways to integrate your story with the strategic elements of the game, ways to integrate your strategic elements (including combat) with each other, your story elements with each other, etc. There are your morality system and story descisions, now strategically important and meaningful, and more significant to combat as well. And you can incorporate all the new stuff people are talking about, like night/day cycles, factions, etc. And of course you have to balance it so that it doesn't suck. Man, I hate having to draw things out like in the paragraph above, because I don't want to tell the devs how to design their game, and I don't want to possibly spoil the game for myself. But what can you do? I already explained all this **** on p.3 of this thread, and there is no sign of anyone understanding it.

Yes it is. Scrolling 2d is more archaic than any dynamic 3d perspective, period. Anyone who says differently is talking out of their ass, and anyone with half a brain should know why. Lies. The fixed perspective allows objects to look good or passable with much lesser attention paid to the graphical features. That is the whole reason for doing it. It would be cool to see "areas" or "frames" where the perspective changes from the standard overhead isometric POV. If they are well implemented, perspective efffects, like being able to see the sky or the full scale of some monumental object relative to your characters, could add a lot to the setting and story. They were already doing this stuff in SNES games! Of course if it is badly implemented, it could hurt the cohesion of your setting and mechanics by ruining the player's sense of space. Some amount of art, i.e. some care, has to go into things like manipulation of perspective, but these things have the potential to improve the game by leaps and bounds. Yes I know, the whole reason the devs wanted to go back to making games with ceratin archaic features was so that they could be lazy about certain things and concentrate more on certain other stuff that they feel they can do extraordinarily well. But you have to look at the game as a whole, and having more cool graphics effects would really be worth the effort.