Sacred_Path

isn't that a sexploitation trope... that's all folks!

I didn't say it's wrong for PE, in my first post I quite clearly said I don't really care about gender (in)equality in PE. I was asking if it's not more of a sci-fi trope because I haven't encountered it in fantasy books (which I read) as much as I've seen it referred to in sci-fi books/ movies (which I don't read/ watch).

Except that's exactly what I was talking about. And when I said 'old' I did not mean 'not contemporary'. But for the sake of argument... I think if you play out gender inequality in a game there's no way to not make it a bit demeaning in nature, otherwise the whole thing doesn't affect the player. If you want to portray an archaic patriarchal society it just begs to express views like 'women aren't built for physical labour or warfare, so they must be kept in the house' (and I'm not even going to argue if that is truly misogynistic, that's semantics).

O really? I thought we had moved past that since the 80's but my overview of general fiction isn't wide enough to argue that. BTW I was talking about the 'Amazonian women enslave/ abuse male drones' kind of trope, not any old variation of matriarchy

Of course this could all work the other way. We could also see matriarchal societies, where men are the ones facing discrimination. isn't that more of a sci-fi trope?

not to sound childish or threatening but i WILL withdraw my pledge if there are more of these polls.

I'd guess gender equality and other anachronisms (i.e. environmental awareness/ sustainability) are to be expected. It always seems a bit ridiculous but it doesn't bother me so much that I'd advocate against it.

lots of good *cough* ideas for Forton I think he's my favorite character already

Hmm... perhaps: "purity always prevails"... but it's somewhat more complex and hard to put my finger on why exactly does it bug me so much. He seems both extremely naive and hypocritical at the same time. if I had to find something naive and hypocritical about his writing i'd say that slaughtering people never seems to take a toll on his protagonists (who indeed are in some way redeemed/ pure as he always tries to get across). The fact that they almost always prevail I'd blame on the circumstance that I think he intended his writings to be inspiring (though I guess you could also call it moralizing). I still relished the books when I was younger, and who can't find a weak spot in their heart for Druss? :D

In a game, due to its interactivity, the journey is very much the goal; different from novels and movies. In a game with stellar gameplay, most ends become acceptable. I expect three things from a well-done ending: - logical consistency: does not contradict most of the information you got both ingame and metagame - coherency: ties up a number of loose ends (not necessarily all, particularly not those your characters wouldn't be informed about ingame) - surprise: if you started the game with the premise of destroying the big meanie and thereby save your world and yourself from destruction, and this is what happens first and foremost, the devs were doin it wrong. This is not to say that it must be impossible for you to expect what will happen, but it should at least be guesswork at best. Other than that, I don't have any expectations as to how my characters will be treated in that final cutscene. And i definitely wouldn't want the devs to feel obliged to deliver a certain ending because i paid for it.

This might be completely OT, but what do you identify as his moral perspective?

would be cool if there were many implements that could be used in the established ways, not just torches but pickaxes, ropes etc. Unfortunately PE isn't that kind of game (Thorvalla might be)

good thread gentlemen try reading it while drunk

Again, like I first said, this is all dependent on how awesome you make them. Obsidian has no control over this. That wasn't really my concern (if I mess up my chars I'd accept that). What I'm getting at is that companions should play by the same rules as your created chars, they shouldn't have more skills/ feats than a self-made character of their level, and no unique magical equipment.

In the pitch video, the name ToEE is dropped, and it was an option in the poll on the website. Also Icewind Dale with its combat heavy gameplay is a good example of an IE game where balance matters. You pretend to know what the core audience wants, but you can't back that up. I personally doubt most people who'll buy this game would say "I don't care about balance at all! All I want is OPSHUNS!" Ensuring game balance is a waste of ressources you say? What kind of trolling is that?

While we cannot doubt that gameplay options take time to implement and balance, we can very well doubt that more options will make the game appeal to "a broader audience". Will any RPG fans skip over this game because you can't turn off friendly fire, if it has a gripping story and solid mechanics? I'd say no. Conversely, will non-RPG fans buy this game because you can turn permadeath on? I'd say no, not if the game's overall features aren't attractive by themselves. All things considered, I'd say a buttload of options will only appeal to habitual RPGers, and will mostly just intimidate and confuse people who aren't familiar with the genre, so in the end it will limit rather than broaden general appeal. Two things: 1) This is true to some extent for BG2, because combat mechanics never was its strong point. From what we've heard about the classes, PE will offer more tactical depth than BG2 (ToEE was cited as an influence), and that makes balancing more important. Of course flawed balance often only becomes noticeable until you've experimented a bit with the game (not even necessarily replaying), but that's hardly an excuse for bad balancing. 2.) There's no reason to copy the flaws of its spiritual antecessors, but there is every reason to try and improve on them.

I reiterate this and I might add, "don't make companions more awesome than characters from the Adventurer's Hall".

Y' know, having a tier with physical items makes me feel better about myself/ less bad about pirates. They don't get for free what I got for my money. I'm p. sure this is true for a number of people. I also have high hopes that many people who sway between pirating and buying will end up paying because they respect Obsidian/ this particular project because it caters as much to the consumers as possible.

Gqaal Dal'ub, God of Incessant Strife & Retarded Arguments. I admit this idea was influenced by several forums I frequent.

On the risk of repeating myself, I hope the devs will present a strong coherent vision of their game, rather than one overflowing with options. Still, some options make more sense and are more meaningful in terms of balance (i.e. permadeath) than others (i.e. friendly fire). On the argument of wether a game whose creative vision doesn't suit you is worse than one where everything is controlled via options, I can only say the devs have listed several games that serve as an inspiration for PE. Personally, I've liked all of them, and that's why I'm p. sure I'll like PE (and more options wouldn't change anything about that). So, what if I bitch and moan about hitting my own peeps with fireballs someplace mid-game? I'd still prefer that over having some dumb friendly-fire-off option. That is, I'd trust the devs to balance their game around the fact that ff will happen, and I'll probably learn to live with and appreciate it. And mastering it will give me proper satisfaction, because I know I've succeeded at playing the game as the devs intended it.

Just putting it out there you're also sacrificing your artistic integrity by adding too many options. Come at me bros

Why on earth should a game be "meant" to be played in a particular way? I consider that very idea to be nonsense. Because the devs have to have some standards in design against which things are balanced. Example: Wizardry 8 I like 'expert' difficulty, but several things become unbalanced. Monster resistances go up so much that direct damage spells becme obsolete, melee is much more effective. Critical strikes become way more important than raw damage. Several classes (like mages) become obsolete because of low HP. Heavy grinding becomes mandatory for skill gains. All this makes expert difficulty more of a gimmick than a real option. In a game w/o options (apart from technical stuff like key bindings and graphic detail) you know you play the game in the way the devs intended (= which they considered as balanced).

A god of technology/ innovation who is at odds with numerous other deities (i.e. of nature). Also a Trickster is pretty much mandatory

This. Also too many options can make you feel like you've never beaten "the game", because you have no idea how it was meant to be played in the first place

The fact that there's an Ironman mode solved all of that for me. I'll play on Ironman, and people who want to use save-scumming are free to do that.