BetrayTheWorld

This has been covered. The budget isn't exactly tight, although I admit I don't know what their schedule is. Do you know something about that I don't? Have they announced a release date already or something? Anyhow, based on several responses, it doesn't seem like people are reading the thread. But either way, it's fine. If people prefer isometric views for some odd reason that no one can explain or show examples of, then that's what they want. I was just hoping to understand it.

This statement represents everything wrong with the world right now, so far as political correctness goes. If only ONE such incident occurred in the game, and it was a female-on-male incident, would there be some big political outcry? No, of course not. But if you go the other way with it, boom, accused of not giving both sexes equal representation. The double standards in what is and is not politically correct is ridiculous. I wish everyone would back off and let people exercise a little artistic license. Nice description. Mind telling me what game/s you're referring to so I can have a point of reference against that description?

Yes, I quoted the specific points I'm responding to, as I'm doing now. This lowers thread clutter and was not meant to "disrespect" the rest of your post. Relax, this is how quotes work. And I don't recommend that you work in the public arena if having only bits and pieces of what you say quoted bothers you. I'm not saying that it is THE one defining feature of a rogue, simply one of them. If you're arguing for their role to be expanded in combat, and to give them additional utility, that's fine. I don't particularly disagree with that, however, I don't think they should have sneak attack taken away, so that's the point I responded to. You can expand their role in combat without removing sneak attack. You can keep both of these options valid by adhering to the main tenant of nearly every post I make here: Options. If there are sufficient character customization options through feats/perks/whatever, one rogue could be geared towards sneak attacks while another is designed for more utility/support. I don't know if maybe you're not familiar with my previous posts, but I am all for any solution that puts control in the hands of players, and serves to make the game enjoyable for the largest majority possible. Anyhow, you'd said you're no longer going to respond to me, so...good chat. Have a great day.

I've yet to see an isometric RPG game that I thought looked better than 3D games like nwn2. The above screenshot is deceptive. I found it listed on other sites where this exact issue is being hotly debated. The angle shown in the above SS has been determined to be unlikely in the game, or part of a screen that will not be shown fully in the game, so you will only see portions of said screenshot at any one time. I encourage you to browse locked isometric games, viewing -real- gameplay footage that isn't a cutscene, and see if you find prettyness galore. I expect that you'll quickly return to the reality that 3D allows you to see/make those pretty screenshots, while isometric views rarely end up with anything at all worthy of a screenshot. Neither do I, and I agree with you. The UI needs to be VASTLY superior to games like PS:T. That doesn't change my opinion that I'd prefer 3D to isometric, however. It wasn't difficult to control the camera in nwn2, and I don't think it was a distraction. I think that is a better comparison to make than "3D FPS games", since they aren't even the same genre.

I generally like where you're going here, but I'd prefer more choices that don't automatically assume I'm a nice guy. For instance, being able to purchase said slave. Then you have the option of setting them free, or making them do your laundry back at the stronghold.

Uh, no. To be more accurate: Usually simply not put in. Rape, racism, and sex are all very real things. Ignoring their existence is juvenile, not the other way around. As a game created for a mature audience capable of dealing with mature issues, I don't think any serious subject should be discarded off-the-cuff. That said, I agree with the rest your previous post.

I do. It's a relic of past generations of gaming that was created that way due to technological and resource constraints. Today, we have engines and resources available to make things 3d fairly easily. Independent game makers and studios can produce 3d games with far fewer resources than they would have needed in 1999. It's not nearly as cost-prohibitive, and is generally better received by the public, so that is the direction most games go. It was triple A budget for a -PC- game in 2006. Since we're talking about a title that will require fewer resources/people to create than modern games, more in line with the production costs of nwn2 in 2006, I think that is a fair comparison to make. My question to those of you voting for locked, isometric 2D graphics as opposed to 3D with the ability to rotate the camera is, why? Why would you prefer a dated, less functional viewpoint to a more modern one? Bear in mind that this discussion assumes that the quality of the gameplay and storyline is mutually exclusive from the graphical viewpoint. It's assumed that we CAN have both a good looking game, and a game that features the gameplay and storylines that we're here supporting the development of. Unless, of course, someone has a compelling argument as to why it cannot be done. Fixed underlined in bold so that we can seamlessly continue discussion. I do see your point here, and it is legitimate. However, I don't think that is going to be the case. If they created character models and the rest of the game to the level of detail you're talking about, there would be no reason not to make it a fully-fledged 3D game instead. It would be less detailed, but overall feel better gameplay wise. My suspicion is that it will have neither the level of detail you're speaking of, nor the 3d features that I am. Which begs the question, why? Even in their promo video for PE, they mentioned games like KotOR and FO:NV, which are NOT isometric games. To me, the appeal of the IE games isn't the viewpoint at all, but rather the compelling stories that they pursued, and the general gameplay, both of which can be achieved in a more modern 3D environment. The aurora engine was created as the 3D successor to the infinity engine. All gameplay elements that the infinity engine allowed are able to be reproduced on the aurora engine, with the added benefit of being 3D, and allowing for camera rotation. Additionally, because the aurora engine is now older, it can likely be licensed for a fairly cost-effective price. So, again, what is the appeal of having a locked isometric view as opposed to being able to rotate the camera? I'm not trying to be facetious, I am truly interested in knowing why anyone would prefer that. If you don't, or can't come up with any legitimate reason to have a locked viewpoint, I highly encourage you to reconsider how you vote in this poll.

Moral ambiguity, racy subjects like abuse, racism, sexism, slavery, abortion, etc, etc should not be shied away from. One of my biggest issues with modern games, entertainment, and even life in general in the US is that everyone is walking on eggshells to try to be politically correct. But this culture of politeness does nothing to address the underlying issues that cause such feelings and situations to begin with. Give me these choices. Let me see the effects of slavery first-hand. Let me see a dim, harsh reality all around me, and let ME decide how to deal with it. That's what I want out of my roleplaying games. Oh, and I want to see my hot mage companion's boobs. lol

I've been thinking quite a bit about this while discussing the "classics" such as PS:T, BG1&2, Fallout1&2, etc... I've heard the term 2D mentioned several times while talking about PE. My question is, how retro is this game going to feel? I mean, they've got a 4 million dollar budget just on kickstarter. With such an outstanding turnout on the kickstarter project, and more people still donating WAY after the fact, I couldn't imagine the budget being less than 6 million when all is said and done. I did a little bit of research into the production costs of AAA PC game titles, and while I couldn't specifically find the production cost of NWN2 available, I was able to estimate it at around the amount that obsidian is going to have in order to fund PE. So essentially, they are getting equal funding to a AAA game title, but talking about using a "locked" isometric view. So that means no camera rotating, right? Why? I guess the appeal of PE, to me, is a return to deep, involved storylines that seem to be lacking in many modern RPGs. But it's these same RPGs who have invariably improved upon the graphical presentation of the games, and created engines that are easy to work within, and don't require the production costs to create an entirely new engine. So my primary question is, why can't we have both? Why can't we have a game that looks good, has decent graphics, AND returns to the days of old, when developers seemed to care about delivering a compelling storyline? Now, I'm not saying Obsidian isn't going to deliver. I really don't know what the final product is going to feel like when I get my copy, but I am concerned based on the language that I've been seeing, that this "new" game is going to feel graphically and mechanically older than nwn2, a game produced by the same company 6 years ago. I would think they'd be able to afford to license something like the aurora engine(nwn1&2) to make this game without putting much of a dent in their budget, and they already have their own custom toolset they created to work with the aurora engine. Now, I'm not asking for cutting edge, modern-day DA:O graphics, but can we at least upgrade from 1999 to 2006, and have equivalent to nwn2 style graphics with the 1999 storyline? What are your thoughts?

I wouldn't be opposed to an ironman mode. I'm guilty of "save-scumming" as well. I typically play only on default difficulty, but this might be something I'd actually use, so long as ironman mode didn't also automatically crank the difficulty up to max.

Posting the response to this line of thought here, as to not resurrect a related thread that hasn't been posted in for awhile. It's relevant, and allows me to address the underlying question of why this is a specialized type of attack instead of a bonus that everyone gets access to. It's not just the element of surprise that constitutes sneak attack damage. It's about catching someone off-guard so that you can stick a small object into a critical, unprotected area. For instance, a warrior has a helm with slits for the eyes and ears, so that he can see and hear reasonably well. A rogue sneaks up and shoves a dagger in his ear-hole: *boom - sneak attack*. This simply cannot be achieved with a claymore. A claymore is far too clumsy a weapon to be aimed at a 3mm by 1 inch slit in a helm. The longer a weapon is, the more difficult it is to reach pinpoint precision with a thrust because the center of gravity is further out from your point of control. Source: Try it IRL. Small weapons like daggers are about finesse and precision, and are capable of such feats due to their size(being able to fit into smaller slits), and weight. The best you could hope for with a surprise claymore attack is to swing it at their general head region, which may or may not collide and contend with the armor they have there. Damaging? Absolutely. Representative of sneak attack damage? Not at all. It does plenty of damage on it's own. Numbered your quotes for responses: 1. You can make positioning and flanking useful for all characters without taking away sneak attack. I believe D&D did this in at least one of their versions by applying penalties to the one being flanked, as well as bonuses to those attacking. This was in ADDITION to the fact that most characters don't get their dex bonus while being flanked. So, in essence, positioning is already useful against challenging opponents for almost all classes. 2. Having an ability that doesn't work well against every single enemy doesn't mean that the ability shouldn't exist. I don't see people arguing to take turn undead away from paladins and clerics, even though it doesn't work on 80% of opponents. Paladins and clerics are FAR more useful in combat against undead than against beasts or other living foes. Rogue's sneak attack is far more useful against the living than the undead/constructs. All this means is that using positioning and sneak attack is a tactical decision, to be used in the circumstances that call for it. It's a tool in the toolbox. Just because you're using a thumb tack to hang up a picture THIS TIME, that doesn't mean you throw away the hammer.

It's actually not out of the question for bandits/thugs/brigands to attempt to rob people just because they're armed. In most periods of history prior to the modern day, most travellers would have been armed with -something-, even if it was pitchforks. Bandits would still try to rob them, although I do agree, they would take numbers, quality of equipment, and other things into consideration when making such a choice. Personally, I think it'd be cool if your reputation effected the ultimate outcome of such an encounter, rather than automatically leveling all encounters to be physically challenging. Example: Base Encounter: Group of bandits comes out of a nearby alley and demands all your money. You decline. If you're lower level and/or have not developed a fearsome reputation in the city: The leader gives the order to attack, and combat ensues. If you've developed a degree of fame/reputation: The leader begins to give the order to attack, but his second interjects, "Hey boss, isn't that Captain Flynn, the guy who took out the entire fluffy bunny gang?" The leader hesitates, apologizes profusely, and you now have options to: 1. attack them 2. let them go 3. demand money from them 4. offer them a job working in your stronghold

I've seen a lot of issues where threads like this turned out poorly, so I likely won't be a regular poster in the thread, but I'll weigh in on the topic at least once. I am of the opinion that romance options should be included in the game. Since this is supposed to be created with mature themes, and sex is a significant part of romantic relationships between adults, sex should probably be a part of that(visual or otherwise). I'd recommend a toggle-able option to turn off any racy scenes, for those who'd rather not have them. That being said, there should be no mechanical benefits to pursuing a romance with someone in the game. This allows the no-romance people to simply not pursue it, and lose nothing except the RP that they say they don't enjoy anyhow. On the other hand, it satisfies the other side who would like a more complete role-playing experience, where relationships and emotions are part of their character's development. Everyone wins in this scenario, and it frees us up to talk about other issues that are more difficult to resolve.

I refuse to vote in this poll due to lack of options. I don't want a static ending at all. I want several endings, sort of like the end of MotB. Some good, some bad, some happy, and some sad. I want the choices I make to be reflected in the ending I receive.

P.S. - it is diliberate. I like to irritate grammar natzis As a grammar "nazi", I'm not at all irritated by your gross misspellings and sloppy quote. Quite the opposite, actually. It's amusing to me. But as I like a fair fight, I feel that I should inform you that it does not irritate intelligent, well-spoken people, but instead simply detracts from your credibility with them(Hey look, I used your word correctly). However, if you are deliberately cultivating this image for your personal amusement, by all means, continue. I assure you it's entertaining us as well.(Or at least me.) On the other hand, when you typically use words well, and don't have gross misspellings throughout every post you make, you can use quotes like this without looking like a complete ass: "My conceptual metaphors, similes, analogies, onomatopoeias, allusions, double entendres, parenthetical asides, innuendos and non sequiturs are so sinister I could verbally slap box with the Devil." -Michael Mason Personally, I prefer not to look like an idiot, or be wrong at all, for that matter. But when I inevitably come across that point where I am wrong, I try to be wrong gracefully. Buy hey, I get it. Not everyone is me. So I'll do me, and you do you. Sincerely, The Highborn Rogue (Shameless thread tie-in)

I think drugs fit the theme for the fallout games, at least in my mind, a bit more than they do here. However, I really don't care either way. If it's something the devs could seamlessly integrate into the world, and make it feel right, then that's fine by me.

This would defeat the entire purpose of what he's proposing, and is actually almost identical to what DnD has done for decades. Before I go on, I want to point out that I see no problem with the HP system that DnD has used. It works, and balances out. But to give you the example of why what you're proposing is essentially the DnD system: Wizards get 1d4 hp per level, rogues get 1d6, clerics get 1d8, fighters 1d10. If you actually follow the rules, and roll the dice, the average hitpoints per level are: 2.5 Wizard 3.5 Rogue 4.5 Cleric 5.5 Fighter So you basically already get an average "bump" in hp of 1 per "hp class" you go up. Fighters get +1 over Clerics who get +1 over Rogues who get +1 over wizards.

Shucks...my neighbor doesn't have a goat.

Hmm, an interesting curiosity; An idea I'm completely ambivalent about. I will likely only play the game on default/normal difficulty.

Out of everything I've seen you post, I believe this argument has the most merit. I vastly prefer classless, skill/feat/perk systems like fallout had to class-based systems. However, since we're talking about a system that has been pre-established as a class-based system, our opinions about class-based vs skill-based is irrelevant in this thread and any thread pertaining to PE. Any constructive opinions or thoughts we give must be based in our current reality to hold any weight whatsoever, and that reality is that PE is going to be a class-based game. EDIT: On a sidenote, ethical dillemma: If you see someone with misspellings in their signature, do you tell them, or don't you?

How long does it take? I just killed the neighbor's cat, and nothing is happening. It still won't take my credit card.

Very good post, and I agree for the most part. I try to be respectful of other people's opinions, but I also consider the situation carefully, and am not afraid to dissent and post something that isn't in line with an OP or vocal person in a thread. I think I've done a fairly decent job of reining myself in, and not being too inflammatory in my responses. Even with posters who have shown themselves to be....illogical, I've tried to be at least superficially respectful. Although, admittedly, I've taken a couple intellectual jabs at people, but only when I thought the jab would go over their head anyhow. One question: How do you deal with the posters who are knuckle-dragging morons? Because you have to admit, they exist.

Not a bad alternative. It doesn't have to be an "alternative"...could simply be one of the options. Personally, troll or not, I'd like to see plenty of options on how to spend money made in game, including investments, properties, drinks, prostitutes, donating to your choice of establishments, buying l33t gear, etc.

I tried to use the donation system on the site, but it said I cannot donate with my visa for some reason, even though there is plenty of money available, and I can use it everywhere else. Do I have any other options?

Well said. It doesn't make it right either. I'll just say that my proposal mantains the effectivenes of rouges and their "feel", while bing more credible. Compared to the standard. cred·i·bil·i·ty/ˌkredəˈbilitē/ Noun: The quality of being trusted: "the government's loss of credibility". The quality of being convincing or believable: "the book's anecdotes have scant regard for credibility". Credibility is subjective. If your audience doesn't feel your opinion is the most trusted, convincing, and believable opinion, then your statement is erroneous. Helpful definitions below. sub·jec·tive/səbˈjektiv/ Adjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Noun: The subjective case. er·ro·ne·ous/iˈrōnēəs/ Adjective: Wrong; incorrect. Synonyms: wrong - mistaken - incorrect - false - faulty - improper