Malekith

In fact, no (should I be glad y/n) How so? Also, I wasn't talking about loot randomization (not major loot anyway), that's a whole different topic. Well, yes. But even that is a staple. In the year 2000, Icewind Dale gave us different kinds of skeletons, a Yeti Chief etc. You sould be glad. It lessens because i have yet to see a game where the random parts were as interesting and fitting in the game world as the hand placed ones. I don't know if it can be done or no, but i would prefer Obsidian to stick to what works and don't experiment when on a limited budget

Sawyer said that a large beastiary is importand and P:E will have it. So there isn't a problem here

What you're asking for is a no-brainer and guaranteed to be in the game. 1)In 2013, if you're including a race of bipedal, amphibious monsters, they're not all going to be of the variety that wields axes, lacks ranged weapons, casts no spells, attacks mindlessly and has exactly 30 hitpoints. There's bound to be at least the usual shaman and a variety that's even bigger and badder and maybe even a lizard chieftain. That was true in the year 2000 AD, and it's even more true now. 2)However, adding randomization to the mix is the only way to ensure that even a veteran player can't contemplate exact strategies without ever even seeing his enemies. No more boring meta-gamey picking of spells at the start of the game knowing "this is the spell I'll use to pwn the monster on level 3, room 2, second coffin from the right in the Temple of Doom". All randomization within limits of course, but even though I always advocate for the game to be well playable in Ironman mode I could live with the fact that randomization of enemies in a horde had an influence on my party's demise. It's still preferrable over the lack of excitement of knowing every enemy in the game like the back of your hand. Then there are people who think randomization is of the devil and must be cleansed with fire, of course. 1)have you played DA 2? 2) I disagree strongly on randomization. It lessens the first playthroughs, witch are the more important. The "veteran player" who has played the game 10 times, won't play the game the 11th time to be chalenged. It will play it because he loves the gameplay and the atmosphere. Randomization is ok for roguelikes, but i haven't see yet an RPG that became better from it, and many who became worse. Even in IWD 2 the randomization of loot became boring, even if there were hand placed items. Or in BG1 the random spawns in the wildernes areas were repeatable and a chore after a point. In opposition BG2 or Torment had better "feel", with the hand placed content, even after many playthroughs.The random content is forgetable, more possible to lead to boredom and in the end to kill replayabillity in the sake of "chalenge in the 20 playthrough"

Indeed. ToEE did a great job with animations and character models. It's those details.. like for example how their stances change when combat begins. "For instance, longswords and bastard swords use the exact same animations." Oh dear. Would people be more upset if they found out that their weapon of choice shares the same attack animations with a longsword or bastard sword... or would they be more upset if their weapon of choice has a single, one and only, attack animation, but! different from a bastard sword, which happens to be the weapon of choice of... John in Australia? This could work on budget. Make 3 attack animations per weapon, but let all swords have the same animations. Same with hammers and morningstars or flails. This overlap is no big thing, and you save money for death animations as well

If by open you meant BG2 then yes, i like it.It had the perfect balance between openness and linearity. It just is that in your first post i got a Skyrim vibe that i personally loath(not a matter of implementation, i dislike the whole direction). The same about randomization of enemies. If they have hand crafted encounters and there is a lore reason for enemies having diffirent stats then again go for it. Have you played any other IE game except BG series? What where your thoughts on them?

Green i agree with. Red not so much. I don't like sandboxes. IE games were not heavy on exploration, only BG1 had a little with the wilderness areas and these areas were my least favorite parts of all five IE games. I don't demand completelly linear like IWD1+2 and semi-lidear like Torment( althought i would be ok with that) but BG2 had my favourite approach of any other game to this day. Just enough open-world, but not an exploration game like TeS

How many attack animations the IE games had?

Attack animations on an isometric game? Seriously, there are people who pay atention to each individual attack? I have replayed BG2 around 50 times and i don't remember if each weapon had many attack animations or one. Death animations all the way. They are memorable, fun and can convey the game atmosphere better

Allowing players to bash open containers without consequence or limitation does a great disservice to those who enjoy playing rogues. If you don't need someone to pick locks and disarm trapped containers, you've taken a huge bite out of the purpose of the class. Yes, having 'one guy which is only there to disarm traps and pick locks' is needless limitations on the Rogue class. You should be able to get along JUST FINE without a Rogue, and Rogues should NOT be the only one that can open chests! Seriously... Your box of what a 'thief' class is, is wayyyyy too small! Increase the size of your box. Look at 3.5e's Factotum for a solid Rogue class, for example. You should not be able to get along JUST FINE without a rogue. You should be able to PROGRESS without a rogue, but not without penalty.It's a party game.In IE games if you didn't had a rogue you were at a disadvantage. Same with cleric,same with mage. If all characters are "well rounded", party composition becomes obsolete. It's not a MMORPG or a single character rpg where every class should be able to manage every circumstance

Also i would prefer no destractable chests and doors. It make the thief class obsolete. The way it was in IE games worked fine. In NWNs not.

There is some risk in using powerful spell-like abilities. With enemies that drop little to no loot a spell can make short work of them. Loot-heavy enemies usually need a "gentler" beating. My proposition is not to make quest-items or super rare items destructible. Only consumables and non-magical weapons/armor. If repairing is implemented in the game, I wouldn't mind broken weapons/armor. In paper sounds good. In practise? Not so much. Take for examble Imprisonment. 9 lvl spell,no save etc... It was the most useless spel in the game.If the opponent was hard enough to merrit 9lvl spells to defeat him he would carry good loot. What then? You use Imprisonment in bears,goblins or something? it has long casting time so its quicker to hit the goblin with a single sword strike or a magic misile. Same with Disintergrate. i have never played a game where such abilities worked well

Yea, this. If this was a PR guy from Activision reviving the Torment "franchise" by saying the exact say **** Fargo's saying people would be screaming bloody murder. And if EA said that they wanted to make an IE inspired game i wouldn't have given them 1$. If this was a PR guy from Activision reviving the Torment "franchise",i wouldn't give a **** about the game. If Obsidian or inXile had the Fallout franchise i would be happy. For Beth's i don't care. *shrug* as much as EA or Activision seem to not make games I'm interested in, I'd wait out to hear how the game is shaping up / see footage / etc before making any complaints. Not liking the business decisions a company makes doesn't mean they can't make (even if its accidental) a decent game. Mind you I tend not to scream "bloody murder" in general about video games since, generally speaking, I just don't pay or play games that don't interest me. And if this sequel shapes up to be terrible, then I'll happily skip it too. Oh, i'm not saying (insert company)'s games are crap per se.Just that the said company's design direction is not for me. For example, if a game is made from Bethesda you can expect that it will be first person,actiony, with focus on exploration. I don't like any of the above,so i don't buy their games. That doesn't make the games bad, sales indicate that is a direction many people find enjoyable. Same with Bioware. They wouldn't make a text heavy game when their audience expect a "cinematic" experiense. Whether this is good or bad is subjective. When i said i trust inXile i meant that i trust them to try to make the game as close as possible to the original, for the original's fans.Bethesda didn't made Fallout 3 for Fallout fans, they made it first for Oblivion fans.InXile doesn't have a core audience yet, and they try to catter to the "oldschool" audience. As all of my favourite games were made about 10~ years ago, i hope they will get it right.

Yea, this. If this was a PR guy from Activision reviving the Torment "franchise" by saying the exact say **** Fargo's saying people would be screaming bloody murder. And if EA said that they wanted to make an IE inspired game i wouldn't have given them 1$. If this was a PR guy from Activision reviving the Torment "franchise",i wouldn't give a **** about the game. If Obsidian or inXile had the Fallout franchise i would be happy. For Beth's i don't care. In the end, it comes to which company you trust and which you don't. I wouldn't trust Bioware for example to make a Torment game because the current Bioware wouldn't stay faithfull to the original by choice. Their fan base cares for different things from what Torment had. I expected Fallout 3 to be completelly diffirent from the first 2, and i knew i wouldn't have liked it, because it was made with a diffferent aim and for a diffirent audience in mind. I trust inXile because i think they will try to make a game in the vein of Torment and with the same audience in mind. If they will be succesfull is another matter. But the intent at least will be there

The real question should be "why were people waiting for a sequel?" It's because it's like saying "I'm going to make a sequel to Citizen Kane." My question is "Why? What purpose would you have in making a sequel to a classic that doesn't really make sense for a sequel to be made?" Take the description of the game. That sounds like something that I want. Now, how many people are in line with that, but got MORE excited because it was told it was a sequel to one of the greatest RPGs ever made. Why did you get excited? Because from there you can not only go "Oh yeah I like those things," but your memory of "OH WOW, they want it to be LIKE THAT!? THAT GAME WAS SO AWESOME!" If you support this decision, then you can't lambast big name publishers for utilizing sequels to increase their bottom line either, because this is former CEO of Interplay Brian Fargo talking here, especially since he's going to be leveraging this enthusiasm to get people to fund the game for him. Furthermore, I've lost count of how many people have said "DA2 wouldn't have been as poorly received if it wasn't billed as a sequel to DAO. Heck, even if it was called DA:Kirkwall or something would have been better." Someone mentioned Bioshock, a game that I enjoyed but ultimately didn't continue playing past the first one, because I always have that feeling of "It's good, but System Shock 2 is quite a bit better..." There's no shortage of people on this forum that don't care for Dragon Age 2. Imagine that the only reason why DA2 came into being was because YOU funded it. If you're truly just wanting cool kickass RPGs, ask yourself why you're more excited about this game, given its description, because it's called Torment 2? If you just want cool, kickass RPGs, and have faith that inXile can deliver, the title should be irrelevant. But it's not. Obviously simply because it's a sequel doesn't mean that it'll be poor (I've mentioned System Shock 2 a few times now, and I'd say BG2 is superior to BG1), but 15 years is no longer sequel development as an iterative process. They're going to be starting from scratch, with a whole new setting, a whole new set of characters, and a boat load of restrictions that will prevent them from even trying to link it to the Planescape setting (so IMO, the Final Fantasy comparison doesn't work as well). Though Final Fantasy is a decent analogue, it's important to note that there hasn't been 13 years between titles. They took an existing IP that has an exceptionally devout following, and the only reason for doing so is that it drums up excitement and brings in the dollars. Exactly the same thing that the big publishers do. I'd have less issue with it if Fargo wasn't looking on getting funding directly from gamers in order to do so. Why does the game have to be called Torment though? The Torment name came from a very specific element of the plot; is this new game going to share the same plot, or is the name just going to make no sense (aside from a marketing standpoint)? But its clear that it is not a sequel. It won't be Torment 2 or something,except if Fargo is really stupid. Its way more possible that it will be called Numenera:Torment. Fargo wants to make it a francize,but it will be with stand alone games,with no conection to each other except that they will focus on story,philosophical themes and will use text as the primary narrative tool. Do you guys have a problem with that? I think is a cool idea. IF he names it Torment 2 and it is marketed as a direct sequel then yes, i will have a problem with it as well. But i don't think it will happen

BSN is horrible.But you reap what you sow.The forum is toxic because this is the kind of people their games appeal to.If you want intelligent deep discussions,make intelligent,deep games.If you deside to write romantic wish fulfillment fantasies marketed as RPGs,you can't comlain to the flamewars about Miranda's ass.More so when your first games were difirent and your original fan base expected something diffirent from you.In the end is all about your target audience.DA2 was a failoure because it didn't appeal to the intended audience,the BG2-DA:O crowd.The series changed direction in the middle to catter to a diffirent audience.That doesn't mean that is a bad "game" per se,but it is a bad "tactical RPG".Mass Effect was never a pure RPG,but it was clear from the start,so there wasn't any backlash until the ending,but that was for competelly diffirent reasons.If DA2 was marketed as a spin off ARPG DA:kirkwall from the start the recception would be very different

You've never seen someone complain about FF sequels? Apples and oranges, very different thing here. If you can't see why on your own I don't know how to explain it to you. This is every bit as bad, in my eyes, as opening up Black Isle studious again . . . with none of the Black Isle people involved. This isn't a sequel or a 'Torment' like game or anything of the sort, it's just name dropping to get attention for a completely unrelated project. You might want to say, "Well that's Final Fantasy" but you'd miss the point that, "Well that's Final Fantasy," Their games were never meant to be direct sequels (until they started doing that with X-2 and XIII-2). One of the first things pushed by this "Torment" game is that it "is" a sequel . . . part of the "torment franchise" despite not being a sequel, or even having access to any of the same resources. If I were looking for a Planescape: Torment game i'd sort of expect it to be set in Planescape, and have some actual links to the game. This game has no such links, they legally can't have such links. So really what they're saying is, "We're going to try and make this game like Planescape: Torment" only "it won't be Planescape: Torment" at which point the only reasonable response, in my mind, is: "Then you should sever all ties, not tout it as a sequel or any of that other nonsense, and just make a game, with its own 'not a cash grab title' and say that it was simply inspired by Planescape: Torment." It's all in the wording. They could have presented it as something inspired, in the same vein, which is what you're hoping it is. That would be fine - but they didn't do that. They went the cash grab, name dropping, 'look at me look at me' route . . . and it's despicable. Read this:http://kotaku.com/5935737/the-guy-who-made-planescape-torment-tells-us-what-a-spiritual-successor-would-look-like from Avellone. Torment in the title is for the most part a marketing ploy.But even Avellone said that Obsidian might be interested in making A P:T spiritual successor after P:E with Avellone as Lead. All a P:T successor really neads is a fantastic, unconventional setting, emphasis on story over combat and to be very text heavy.If it matches that crittiria it is in the vein of Planescape:Torment.Will it be as good?Noone knows, but propably not.But its a direction in games that no other game followed,except maybe MotB, and its the direction i enjoy most. Will be a good game?I think so.Better than Torment?No.But it doesn't have to be.Its enough that they will try.DA:O was worse than BG2,but was still a good game.The same can happen here .And i'm happy that it has no conection to the first game.The story of the first is finished and anything they would do at this point would be pointless.Even in Black Isle days, Avellone had an idea of a sequel in the Planescape setting,but it would be a whole new story without the Nameless One. http://www.rpgwatch....55&ref=0&id=208 and part 2 http://www.rpgwatch....56&ref=0&id=208

Torment in the title is for the most part a marketing ploy.But even Avellone said that Obsidian might be interested in making A P:T spiritual successor after P:E with Avellone as Lead. All a P:T successor really neads is a fantastic, unconventional setting, emphasis on story over combat and to be very text heavy.If it matches that crittiria it is in the vein of Planescape:Torment.Will it be as good?Noone knows, but propably not.But its a direction in games that no other game followed,except maybe MotB, and its the direction i enjoy most. Will be a good game?I think so.Better than Torment?No.But it doesn't have to be.Its enough that they will try.DA:O was worse than BG2,but was still a good game.The same can happen here

Note that I said: I notised.But this game will be kickstarted sometime in 2013, and P:E will come out 2014. I think thats why he said he won't work on this one

I hope not.He should consatrate on P:E.I prefer for him to give his 100% in one game than have him do a half assed job in many

MCA will be too busy with P:E to work on this one

RPS – Given no Planescape and presumably none of the PST characters, what makes a Torment game a Torment game to your mind? Fargo: We know it hasn’t been done often in the game industry, but we’re envisioning Torment as a thematic franchise with certain themes that can expand over different settings and stories. We will focus on the same things that made people appreciate PST so much: overturning RPG tropes; a fantastic, unconventional setting; memorable companions; deep thematic exploration of the human condition; heavy reactivity (i.e., choice and consequences); an intensely personal (rather than epic) story.

Some of the same writters work on this.Yes, it doesn't need to have "Torment" in the title, but i like the idea of a "thematic" francize, where the link between games is only the metaphysical themes,walls of text etc.

No, havent played either. No resurrection even in normal mode? Ill bet you could you heal your party in the field though. How so? There are zero healing capabilities in the P:E universe. Well, except sleep, and you cant sleep in combat or run back to the inn. If you haven't played them,you couldn't know.In Fallouts you had no control of companions, so in a battle they could accidentally shot each other,and with plasma weapons one-shot each other.And no,there was no resurection even in easy.Healing items yes

Well, you should be able to heal both imo. The stamina healing potions could be uncommon and the health potions could be very rare or something. I agree but currently thats not how the mechanics are being described. Stamina will self regenerate both inside and outside of combat but health can only be regenerated by resting. No potions, no spells, no abilities....only a good nights sleep will fix that dagger stuck in your neck. I wonder what will happen if say three NPC's die during a battle. Will all their stuff spill out onto the floor in a pile that you have to pick up and distribute amongst the remaining live members while you haul them back to town? Is no resurrection only for Ironman mode? It would have to be, right? Otherwise simple attrition will whittle your crew down to only you by the time you reach chaper two. Have you played fallout 1&2? No resurection either.And in P:E you will control your companions in battle so its even easier for you to keep them alive.

I liked the BG2 areas better.The BG1 wilderness felt empty and pointless to me.