Malekith

I don't believe PE paladins will have stupid causes like "for the GOOD" or "for the EVIL". The whole point was for Obsidian to ditch the idiotic morality system. I believe people will be more like in Game of Thrones or New Vegas. They will care about themselves and maybe their factions, but they won't champion universal umbrela causes like good/evil. Remeber, grey morality. But i could be wrong.

Well, clearly I am advocating for what I think a paladin should be. Why should I do otherwise? Frankly the PE paladin so far is basicly a D&D warlord. What's the point of calling it a paladin then? What's hte point of a name that invokes something if it doesn't. OK, the devs went to the root of the name, and not the most common mental image most people will have. I still don't like it. The D&D Paladin was my favorite class. This shares only the name, and none of the awesome. When the Paladin streach goal was reached, I was all "hell yeah". Now...nothing. Also, trying to put a new "twist" on everything is in itself bad. You end up looking you're trying too hard to be different. How can you even twist the undead differently? They are supposed to be dead.. (well, not dead-dead) Too much twisting and you end up with sparklepyres. Malazan Book of the Fallen ( a fantasy series that both Avellone and Ziets are fans of) has the best and very original spin of undeath. It can be done. It just requires imagination. Also keep in mind that Chanter, the class we have instead of bards is also very different. These classes didn't fit with PE setting, so Obsidian modified them to fit.

Games in general? They should fall everywhere. There should be novel-like games and complete sand boxes.That way everyone can choose what he likes. PE spesificaly? It should have a focus on narrative like the IE games, but that doesn't mean that the game shouldn't be reactive. You can have a scripted game that it's reactive to a point. What the game shouldn't do ever is taking control away from the player. If your story cannot be told without taking control away from the player, make him behave like an idiot during a cutscene etc., change your story. To have a companion die is ok, as long as it is something that the player couldn't prevent in any way. For example having your companion die in a duel in cutscene like Gorion in BG or Ravel and your companions in PS:T is ok. Having them die in a scripted event during the battle, where the player could be winning and prevent it is idiotic. The same way that some games allow you to fight the bigbad middleway, you kick his ass and when is almost dead, he stands up an beats you in a hit , or says something along the lines of "you see i'm too strong for you, you are no worth my time". It's ok for e dev to design a battle with the intention to make the player lose to triger an event, but he should also script something in the off chance a really good player wins the "imposible" battle.

Why should a person who have dedicated his life to guard a pilgrim road (just an example, i thing a sertain order in the lore was dedicated in something along those lines), have a spesific power to smite undead? By what logic? Also we don't know if PE will have undead, or even if it has them they would be your typical undead. The souls concept can allow them to make an original spin on undead. From what I have gleaned, smiting undead is still a possibility. Every class expresses its soul differently. Paladin's radiate their life energy/soul, which has a perk of empowering nearby living creatures. It could have the opposite effect against undead. I'm not saying it can't be done. But by the same logic it's just as possible to have druids or ciphers be the ones that are more effective against the undead. After all ciphers are the ones with the most knowlege and control over their souls. My point is that in PE paladins have nothing to do with the "holy warrior" archetype,nor should they, so they won't have shoehorned abilities that make no sense just to fit with some people preconceptions of what a paladin should be. Maybe. maybe not. Personally i hope Obsidian make the undead in this setting something completelly different than the classic "resurrected corpses because necromancy"

Why should a person who have dedicated his life to guard a pilgrim road (just an example, i thing a sertain order in the lore was dedicated in something along those lines), have a spesific power to smite undead? By what logic? Also we don't know if PE will have undead, or even if it has them they would be your typical undead. The souls concept can allow them to make an original spin on undead.

Paladins never could go one to one with fighters. Even in D&D their use were their special abilities.

What you describe would still be better as a subclass than a separate class. Armors, weapons and in the tick of melee with relntless zeal and fury - that's a paladin. Armors, weapons and in the tick of melee with relntless bloodlust and fury - that's a berserker. etc. Also: Noone said anything about leading. It's more about inspiring people to fight harder. That way being driven makes sense to encourage your teammates

Then it doesn't deserve a seperate class. He should be a subclass to fighter like BG2's subclasses. If all you want is a fighter that has a pompous name, make it a subclass.

Don't have a problem with either. My problem is with BG areas that were mostly empty. I don't want something similar in PE.

But ecept the portraits, BG2 was BG+. That's how a sequel is made. Keep what's good, work on the areas that were problematic, and just add more content. You don't fix things that aren't broken (replacing them with broken things no less), nor you reinvent the wheel making your game unrecognizable.Especially when you are on a tight budget and short time to make the game.

Fixed. Of all the things Bioware was inconsistent about DA2, the art direction was the least problem.

It's like a bad breakup. It's an emotional base, not a rational one. This bunny speaks wisely And it seems it works both ways. Gaider doesn't seem to like his audience much.

In BSN? I can understand it here or in Witcher forums or RPGCodex, but Bioware's own forum isn't supposed to be Bioware fans? Who do you think would be most disappointed with Bioware's recent titles if not their fans? The ones with the greatest hope are often those hit the hardest by bitter disappointment. To be disapointed is one thing. To be petty for the sake of pettiness and negatively predisposed against the game no matter what doesn't make sense to me. Do they want the game to be good, or do they want the game to fail so they can gloat to Gaider? Your comment implies the second.

In BSN? I can understand it here or in Witcher forums or RPGCodex, but Bioware's own forum isn't supposed to be Bioware fans?

Yeah, especially since I, a self-professed fan of Bioware and its games, depend on all these people with "no interest in Bioware", who are "never ever going to buy one of their games again" on receiving all my Bioware news in a timely fashion. And we both know all these "Bioware bashers" will be playing DA3 when it gets released Fat chance. PE will be released few months before it Chances are i will play DA:I (if i don't hear terrible things about it) , but it will be in a Steam sale. After all i played DA:O 2 years after it was released as well. I don't like modern games so much to purchase them in Day 1

What i don't like about this is that can become a cop out. " oh, a gate to the fade is open and we need the mages help to close it and templars to fight the demons. Let's unite and fight the archdemon Flemeth the BIGBAD. The templar-mage war was the only element in any Bioware game in the last decade with no clear black and white solution, and i was curious how Bioware would deal with it.

Are there any plans to have an isometric camera option? That can make me excited for the game all by itself. Camera was one main reason that i didn't liked W2 much.

Well, W3 was too "Skyrim-like" for my taste. I was more positive towards the game before i saw the trailer.

*raises hand* This wasn't a problem. I've never once played a CRPG where it felt like the combat was anything other than time-wasting filler that got in the way of me enjoying the parts of the game I actually liked. It's my least favorite part of all of them. The last thing I want is a more involved "strategic layer" to get in the way of my fun. Then what's your opinion of the IE games? Except PS:T obviously.

I disagree that it's a "story driven rpg". Basically everything we've heard so far has been about the combat, we already know that there's no pacifist playthroughs, and dungeon crawling was a major part of the original pitch. I think they should prioritize fun and balanced combat over 'immersion'. Story driven was also part of the pitch, and Sawyer has said that they won't reveal any story updates. But i agree with the respawning enemies when it makes sense, as long as it's not like the BG1 travesty.

It's not that strange as you make it sound. it's not like we stare at the numbers with no contact with the rest of the screen. Naturally we view all the parts. But the ratio of usefull information between the parts is uneven. If the encounter is easy, then yes, i also look at my sprites beating each other. But in difficult encounters i find myself looking more and more at the character portraits to check my teams condition. Sensuki does it with the combat log. If something unexpected happens, i pause and look at the log. I'm sure most people do something similar in fact.

I usually went for "core" settings, especially when the games were based on D&D. And no, visceral gameplay of the kind I think you mean here is not my cup of a tea. Still, I'm surprised you'd rather watch that combat log than enjoy the game. Those games weren't that difficult, especially if you had a solid PnP background. Certainly no need to let that little window take over your gaming experience, but to each their own, I guess. I recall, although not so fondly, mates that were all about rules and stats, and they min-maxed as much as they could. Unfortunately, that didn't translate into RPG- characters the way C2B explained in his post. Rather, the opposite, I'm afraid. Still, some of those guys were fun to hang out with anyways. Despite how it comes, i don't play games for min maxing the numbers. I play them for the story and roleplay. If it were up to me the game would be more like PS:T and have huge walls of text. I don't have a huge problem with the option to turn of the log. But i didn't disagree with karkarov only in that. Pretty much everything he prefers is terrible design for my tastes. He encapsules everything that is atrocious about modern games(pretty much anything). But i don't have a problem with games existing that he likes. All AAA RPGs are the crap he likes. It's us who don't have any games to play outside of kickstarter. And now he wants to make these games "modern" as well. That's why some of us react so negatively to his posts.

I look at the combat log more than the actual combat, particularly if I've already played the encounter. ^That. I spent more time watching the portraits to monitor the health and status effects and the log than the battle itself. I don't know what kind of experience some had, but i don't remember IE combat being a "visceral" experience, nor should it be.

Honestly, i found combat terrible in both games.

You should play it. Improves on the original in every possible way. If possible, get polish voice overs with subtitles. No. I liked the first one, but i didn't bother to finish the second one. It was like a medieval Mass Effect.