Sacred_Path

Character development is actually one thing I like the most about RPG's. I can absolutely enjoy reasoning like "I'll take two rangers along even though archery is weak in the beginning, but if I raise stealth and archery they should be competent around level 3 and they will really help around level 5 to take out spellcasters at the battle of the bridge but then they'll just be mediocre scouts until the end game". OTOH, I think it's not as fun if you can plot your entire way through the game in a similar fashion by selecting all quests in advance and maximizing HP gains. That makes the game dull IMO. mebbe, if the XP gains in this mode are also different from other modes.

Immershun is entirely subjective of course, but I wouldn't have a problem with that specific example as it's strictly ingame information. Your character knows when he's trying to be suave and convincing (or puts that much more effort into it). One reason why I don't think it makes for a good option is that you can't really toggle between on and off. Once you've played the game with that option on, there's no point in ever turning it off again. OTOH, a good example of an option would be "max HP" in Icewind Dale.

Uhm... is anything that's not a part of the tradition unacceptable for a "traditional" CRPG even if it doesn't go against the tenets of this tradition? IOW, "I want mah kill XP and I want ta see em"?

Nop. I think some pointers are vital to the player. Telling you exactly how much XP you got for every little task isn't vital OTOH.

Personally, I enjoy imagining that the characters I roleplay aren't suicidal and able to make good choices; that is, that they would choose a path through the world isn't going to get them killed with certainty (if they lack the money for multiple resurrections, at least). Anyway I didn't want to hijack the thread sry Yes, and I'm coming from the POV that characters can't perceive their growth in "experience". Though, if you have a different interpretation of "experience" and "levels" then you may disagree.

I'd chip in with another 2m if they remove Elves from the game

Generally you are right if quests also have other substantial consequences, or rather rewards, than XP (which most often they do not). Never said that, but a sub-optimal choice is a sub-optimal choice. BTW I don't believe in the "this is a single player RPG so nothing has to be balanced" rhetoric. It's also probably the only genre where you get to hear this. There's a difference between ingame (like damage rolls) and meta-game information though.

It tends to make other quests with lower XP reward irrelevant/ a bad choice.

I've yet to see any reason to be disappointed with the art direction in P:E. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

toggle. togglable options are always the best way. I disagree. Any option that is available in-game that makes the game easier punishes you for not making use of it. I want to be able to play the game efficiently w/o it being immersion breaking.

Looking at those screenshots and staying slightly on topic, I could do without the also fourth wall breaking information of how many XP I just got, and they should do away with visible XP meters altogether.

that depends on wether there's something that creates a feeling of unity between Godlikes or not. Manic-depressives are a group, but they don't have their own culture.

it's a thestral, obviously. kk I'll show myself out

I don't see why. I'd much rather have a development team who arrives at decisions after actual consideration, than one who simply foregoes consideration of possibilities all-together and simply goes with the first thing they think of. Weeeell... this team is rather experienced in matters of multiclassing. It's a DnD staple after all. So they know it never really worked, it just allowed one character to fill two or three positions at no real cost because of the rapid level gain in CRPGs and opportunities to grind for XP. So I'd applaud them if they were like "you know there's one trope and DnD reference that we could avoid, and it's that of the Fighter/Mage/Thief". I'd much rather the game were balanced around single class characters and the system were flexible enough to create characters like the one I described, which basically should satisfy all the needs of someone who wants a multiclass character, with the one critical difference that this one character will never be as powerful a spellcaster as a single class wizard, not as good a warrior as a single class fighter and not as a good a thief as a single class rogue. And that's how it should be, amirite?

There must be a remake of Lionheart in Unity.

Eh, Irenicus' dungeon was a pretty fu*ing bad opening area for reasons that had not much to do with linearity or lack thereof. However, I'm going to comment on one of your points: A linear game can still very effectively make use of what for me is the essence of a CRPG; make good use of your characters' abilities to overcome obstacles. Players' behavior can differ drastically if they have capable archers in the party (that can draw enemies and disrupt casters), sneaky offensive casters (that can charm foes or bomb a room), assassins (that can take out bosses), or a melee heavy party that can take up positions in the center of a room. Better yet, the linear layout makes balancing all these aspects for the devs much easier, limiting the number of potential loopholes. With just a little room to maneuever, you can even sneak - and thereby pick and choose - with what denizens of the dungeon you want to make contact. Saying that all players have the same experience makes me wonder if you have played any linear RPGs at all. BTW, I'm guessing your definition of a "linear" dungeon still allows choosing between going left or right... because I can't think of any CRPG right now where there are no optional rooms/ hallways in dungeons. IMO the best kind of design is having dungeons with several levels which are each slightly non-linear, but must be traversed in a linear succession.

wer rastet der röstet.

it says under consideration, not under construction. Subtle difference there. Needless to say I hope they will let even the "consideration" part fall under the table

Did you miss the part where they explain that an animat is created by binding a soul to an armor? How is that "tech magic"? Binding a soul to create what is basically an automaton? That sounds like a dilution of the "soul" concept to me. If anything, with the potential of dipping into the soul powers of living beings, there was a chance to avoid "golems" and similar variations of animated objects.

Animats? Banish the thought. Why come up with "soul magic" when you're going with tech-magic anyway?

What I expect is a good array of choices. The devs don't need to go the trouble of coming up with reasons why a character would make a certain choice, it's enough if they simply provide that choice as it would realistically exist. This obviously includes choices that are at the extreme ends of what in DnD terms would be a good-evil axis.

AFAWK there will be no multiclassing. However, due to the very flexible nature of PE's character development, I'm sure you could create a mage who wears armor and uses swords with points in lockpicking and trap disarming.

It's not they've mentioned that before. I must have made myself forget about it.

But by the time you're even able to fight Kangaxx you'd have already played through a significant portion of the game and by definition are no longer a newb. You are as far as this particular type of enemy is concerned.

I certainly hope this game isn't balanced around solo games; unless maybe on ultra easy with all options that could add challenge turned off. But I don't think I need to be worried there. Since the main quest will use level scaling, the one advantage that single characters have in CRPGs (more experience) falls flat.