Continuum

I think there should be some random open world areas but that the scripted areas should not respawn. If I wanted to wade through tons of random monsters hanging around everywhere, I'd play an MMORPG. I don't like it if I'm forced to wade through half an hour of respawn just to go back from point B to point A on a fetch quest or such.

I'll say it would definitely be nice if P:E goes for general realistic body types and not being ridiculously stereotyped in any ways, including all the fat people being jolly, lazy, gluttonous, whatever. A more common issue is the female figures... please do not make them barbie dolls in chainmail bikinis. Realistic proportions and armor/outfits that actually seem functional, for everybody, please. Not saying their shouldn't be attractive characters, just that they not look like they were designed by a 14-year old boy.

AGREED! It can be beyond annoying if overdone. On the other hand, if used well it's epic. I think we all smile when we hear "Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!" "Evil all around us... careful not to step in it." And other classic Minsc-sims. But even epic lines like that can get annoying if they repeat every few seconds. Chatter frequency sliders are a very good thing. Not just combat, either... one of the best mods for Skyrim is the one that reduces the distance at which townspeople utter their one inane line at you. Prior to the mod, there are a few people I discreetly killed just so they would STFU.

Fallout: New Vegas has a boatload of technical problems due to its engine... but for my money, it did one of the best jobs ever at providing a well-realized world that recognized the choices your character made. No little morality meter... no simple choices. You couldn't complete every faction quest line - no middle ground between NCR and the Legion, neither side took well to you working with Mr. House or going independent... not everybody loved FNV as much as I did, but I feel it showcased the strength of Obisidian's commitment to storyline and recognition of choices in RPGs. So I have a high hopes for P:E.

Please no console version. I pledged my money for a full-featured PC version. Developing for consoles AND PC means diverting a massive portion of the funds for development. Developing for the PS3/X360 means imposing all sorts of limitations on the AI and control scheme of the game. The Wii... no. Maybe the next generation of Playstation and Xbox will provide more interface options (hello wireless keyboards and mice/trackballs!) and enough processing power to provide quality RPG AI, but the PS3/X360 does not.

I very much agree with the OP. I find it really hard to play old RPGs because everything in games designed around 640x480 boxes becomes either incredibly tiny or incredibly blurry on my 20" 1280x1024 monitor (let alone my 40" HDTV). This will be even more of a problem with the DPI scaling he is talking about.

People are being unnecessarily rude in this post. I understand why... we may claim PC elitism, but the real issue is the rash of recent RPGs that have had interfaces designed around the console with little or no effort to optimize the PC version for mouse/keyboard. It's especially painful on games like Dragon Age that are simplified for the consoles or a traditionally PC series like The Elder Scrolls that doesn't even design a keyboard/mouse menu interface. To the OP though... ALL of my PC use occcurs on my couch. I use a Microsoft Arc wireless keyboard and a Logitech Trackman thumb trackball. For games that work better with a gamepad, I plug in my PS3 controller (using the MotioninJoy driver to make the system recognize it as an Xbox controller). This means that my PC has 98% of the gaming functionality of my PS3 (with better graphics). For FPS/action games designed around mouse use, this does not work as well as a gaming mouse and keyboard on a desktop. But for non-competitive RPGs, strategy, and adventure games, it works fine. The trackball is not as responsive for aiming as a mouse but much more responsive than a gamepad. Movement is more responsive with a gamepad. I use whichever one works best for the game I'm playing.

I'm fine with player skills unlocking additional dialogue options. It's nice to see them incorporated in the conversation part of the game and they can be used to expand conversation. What I want P:E to avoid is the following: * Persuade/Intimidate skills that have no purpose in the game other than "winning" at conversation. Having character traits like wisdom, intelligence, charisma that open up certain conversation options at certain levels is fine, as long as that isn't the only function of that skill and the only way to "win" the conversation. I don't like putting points in to "conversation win" skills, and it becomes especially stupid in a party-based game because then it's simply a must-have skill for at least one character. * "Rolls" to "win" conversation. Good lord, I hate every time a game does this. Your persuade/intimidate skill gives you a % chance to "win" the conversation. One of two things happens here... either I just reload a save if I "lose," or I just get pissed off. * Bizzare conversation minigames - I'm looking at you, Oblivion. * Switch to conversation character for every conversation - If my entire six-person party is standing next to the NPC I'm talking to, then I don't want to have to flip party lead to the character with the best conversation skills every time I talk to somebody. They all get to use their skills in a fight if they are present, I should be able to benefit from every character's skills in non-combat situations as well.

I'd like to see weapon selection guided by some basic characteristics: Type of damage - crushing (hammer/mace) vs slashing (swords, axes) vs piercing (spears, arrows) being incorporated in to both weapon and armor type to provide some meaningful distinctions between weapons other than just DPS. Range - different between one-handed melee weapons, two-handed melee weapons, polearms, short ranged, long ranged Speed - should be a massive difference in speed between a dagger and a polearm, crossbow and a short bow Damage per hit - obvious, polearm should do much more damage than a dagger Varying those four things would create meaningful differences in weapons. Every game differentiates melee vs ranged, fast vs slow, but adding in three different physical damage types and 2-3 different melee ranges would make all the different. I don't expect Obsidian to come up with different animations for every weapon. Make the animation based on weapon class - dagger, 1H swords, 1H axes, 1H club weapons, 2H swords, 2H axes, 2H club weapons, polearms, throwing weapons, bows, crossbows. Could probably combine axe and club animations if needed. Basically link the weapon animation to rough size/shape with range being the big differentiator. Then weapons within a class could be differentiated not only by damage and speed but also by the type of damage to differentiate them. This creates a large variety of weapons without generating an insanely complex system or the need to animate dozens of different attacks.

I love turn-based games in that I enjoy being able to stop and tactically plan out everything. Pausable real-time like Infinity Engine games and Dragon Age is good, but how good is very dependent on the AI of the NPCs. Crappy AI dramatically impacts RPGs. Even the mediocre AI in Dragon Age was very problematic. You had to create all these rules and conditions to basically program each character, and if you wanted to go beyond a few simple rules you had to sacrifice skills in things like crafting and combat skills. Things like area of effect spells and traps become EXTREMELY problematic... either the game has to make your characters immune to them or you have to massively micromanage the NPCs to keep them out of the AoEs, effectively making things in to a half-baked turn based system of hitting the pause button. It's been a long time since I've played an IE game, but I remember this being a problem there as well. Any time you have to juggle more than one or two characters in tactical combat, the system either requires intense micromanagement, an extremely complex AI, or increasing simplification of the combat systems. Good AI is a rarity. If the combat system is going to be simplistic, then why bother making a top-down, full-party RPG? And if I need to micromanage everything, I'd rather just have it be turn based. There is a happy medium to be hit with pausable, tactical, real-time, it's just hard to hit. I'd prefer to see P:E error towards the turn-based side of that continuum. Nothing annoys me more than being dependent on AI companions that basically get in the way of my attempts at strategy.

This is a good example... as Matthiasa says, the devs should use whatever math is needed to create good results. I don't need to be able to recreate the game in tabletop form with dice. But even if the actual result is mathematically complex enough to require calculus or such, there is generally a simplified version of the equation that can be presented to players in the form of basic arithmetic for decision making purposes.

The game should present all the information in a way that you don't need to understand math any more complicated than basic probability (e.g., your lvl 15 fighter Thog has a 65% chance to hit this level 15 goblin), with options to show more or less of the math involved. It should be enjoyable and logical to people who don't look at math, and that can be accomplished WITH solid math that ensures logical outcomes. That said, many RPG players like myself enjoy juggling the gear and probabilities, and I hate it when the math in a game is treated as if it's top-secret. My undestand is that P:E is going to a be a classic style RPG, semi-turn based, with hit and damage outcomes determined by math rather than player skill at aiming. If I'm playing an action game, I don't expect to see any more math than I need to determine which weapon is more accurate and damaging; could even be a graph/image. If I'm playing what I would consider a hybrid action RPG like Fallout or Skyrim, I expect to have access to enough math to accurately compare items/spells/armor. If it's a turn-based game where every attack is determined by probabilities, I expect to be given enough access to the math to make informed decisions based on basic arithmetic/probability. The most common model that Obsidian has presented for P:E is the Infinity Engine games, notably BG and Torment. Those are basically turn-based games that happen on the fly, so I expect all the math to be readily available to me if I want it, including a combat log that I can look at if I want to do so. I hate guessing at how effective something will be. Simply including the combat log and greater levels of mathematical detail as options can satisfy everbody. The effects of every action in this type of game IS decided by math, so it's there to be shown in whatever detail works.

Key things I would like to see in armor: EVASION - Chance to be hit should be based on character/class abilities, not on the armor. Armor should PENALIZE evasion in increasing levels with increasing weight. MITIGATION - The function of armor is to mitigate some or all of the damage received when hit. This can be either a % reduction in damage received or a flat amount of damage mitigated (F:NV-style Damage Threshold). There are advantages and disadvantages to both types of mitigation. DAMAGE TYPES - Different types of armor are more/less effective against different types of damage. This can create excessive complexity in games, but it's a feature that I would like to see in P:E. Here is a breakdown of the basic damage types that I would like to see in P:E and mitigated by armor types. Crushing / blunt force - e.g., hammers, fists, tails, rocks, etc. Slashing / edged - swords, axes, claws, spikes, etc. Piercing / stabbing - arrows, spears, teeth, etc. Elemental / temperature - fire/heat, cold/ice Electrical - IF there are non-magical electric attacks... I don't like lumping electricity in with fire/ice because it behaves dramatically differently Magical - can be further broken down in to types of magic if necessary Damage from poison, acids, etc. should not be mitigated by armor but rather should be secondary effects of attacks or ignore armor depending on the nature of the attack (e.g., poison gas ignores armor, acid damages armor, etc.) MOVEMENT/FATIGUE - Real life provides plenty of reasons that heavy armor is only used in limited situations. Most notably, it restricts movement speed and causes fatigue. Implement movement restrictions and fatigue penalties by armor type/weight. Give partially offsetting movement/fatigue bonuses to classes intended to use heavier armor (warriors, knights, etc.). NO CLASS RESTRICTIONS - Class restrictions are very artificial. The world of RPGs has evolved way beyond D&D. Put natural penalties to armor that determine it's effectiveness and appropriateness for a given character/class, such as: Weight/volume - the heavier the armor, the more inventory/weight it consumes. Warrior classes should be able to carry more and thief/mage classes should have more random crap to carry that creates tradeoffs with heavy armor/weapons. Rogue penalties- armor type dramatically impacts stealth, climbing, acrobatics, etc.. No human can effectively sneak, climb, jump, etc. in plate mail. This alone can make heavy armor useless to many thief/assassin builds. Casting penalty - rather than saying mages can't wear armor, just impose a casting time penalty or some such, as in Dragon Age. Make severe tradeoffs between more effective weapon/armor types and magic use. Make sure any "battle mage" or "arcane warrior" talents/builds reflect those tradeoffs so that they can't equal the magic output a "pure" mage in light armor with a staff or whatnot. SITUATIONAL BENEFITS AND PENALTIES- Certain types of armor should convey bonuses for given situations that guide their use. An adventure in the realm of the evil winter monsters should mean that the insulated armor is worth the loss of mitigation to other damage types or the increase in weigh or other penalties. A short jaunt to the massive epic battle may be worth wearing the heaviest functional armor for a character, whereas a longer adventure is better served by a lighter, more multi-purpose armor. The inherent advantages/disadvantages of the armor should determine the usage, not artificial restrictions like class. Just because it's a fantasy world doesn't mean that we should ignore "realistic" benefits and penalties guiding the use of things. The more logical the functions of armor and weapons, the more enjoyable I find them, and the easier they are to understand for people who don't care to dig in to the math.

I've never seen the logic in armor reducing the chance to be hit. It would be easier to hit someone in heavy armor, not harder. The whole point of any armor is to mitigate the amount of damage incurred on being hit, whether we are talking about a light police flak jacket or a suit of full plate mail. Any game system should reflect this. The idea that armor doesn't affect critical hits makes some sense in the idea of crits hitting weak spots. However, most armor is specifically designed to provide the MOST protection on the most vulnerable areas of the target. Breastplate and helmet being the most obvious example. I can see a lot of frustration with heavy armor being completely ignored in lucky shots. I hate being completely at the mercy of the RNG. One solid way to structure around this is a Damage Threshold concept like the one in Fallout: New Vegas. The armor absorbs a fixed amount of damage rather than a percentage. The upside to this is that it creates a "realistic" feel in that minor damage is completely ignored and crits still offer a major damage spike without completely invalidating the armor. The downside to DT can be in level scaling... If you use a system like some RPGs where EVERYTHING scales up - HP, damage per hit, etc., then it can quickly invalidate a fixed number DT. I'm not real wild about that type of scaling anyway... it often makes the starting parts of a game seem pointless, tedious, and/or frustrating.