forgottenlor

I completely disagree. Lephis is correct. I don't just want to play out their personalities in my head or write it somewhere that I can click on occasionally. I would like it if I can completly design a companion, including a personality which actually manifests itself in the game.

I guess as an old guy I'm kind of nostalgic for the early Might and Magic, SSI AD&D gold box games, and Bard's Tale series, where your party always started off at some kind of inn or adventurer's hall, which you could return to at any time and create a new character.

I'm wondering if the boss fight with the leader (say 3 random melee bosses each with a magic weapon and armor, for example) is worth the extra work. I admit it wouldn't be negative per say, but resourses may be spent better elsewhere. As far as normal bandits go (who will probably not have equipment worth equipping on a character), does the randomness destroy immersion to some degree? Wouldn't most bandits have say crossbows in some regions, and say long bows in another, depending on what is popular in those game locations? Also would the difference between a speer and a pike make enough of a difference in a battle, that the random effect would add enough replayability that you would notice and care?

I just wanted to be clear that these personalities don't have their own stories per say, but still do have something unique, but short to say on specific occasions, which for me is a major improvement over Icewind Dale characters, who have their own distinct voices, but nothing interesting to say and thus come across more or less as puppets (which are fun to dress up at least )

In Wizardry 8 there were amoung others the following "personalities:" friendly, kind, eccentric, loner, chaotic, burly, aggressive, cunning, intellectual. Each had 2 distinct female and 2 distinct male voices. Not only did they chime in at specific commands, but they chimed in at specific places. For example at level ups, at the end of combat, et. and each one distinctly (with their own phrase fitting their personality.) Also very rarely during a major story event they might have something to say fitting to their personality. Here is a video from character creation:

So we know there will be an Adventurer's hall where you can create your own party members. We don't know much else about it. What would you like to see in the Adventurer's hall? Here are some ideas. *I'd like characters created in the hall to be able to choose a personality like in Wizardry 8. Its not like having a companion with a story, but its better than the generic PCs in Icewind Dale. *I'd hope the adventurer's guild come relatively early in the game, so you don't have to play half the game with a makeshift party. *I'd love it if the hall is more than a generic building. I'd like it if it played some minor role in the story even if you don't want to make characters there. Maybe there could be some optional side quests there. Maybe they have a cool shop inside or provide useful services.

I agree with Valorian. Which items a bandit drops really only matters if its an item that someone in your party is going to equip. Otherwise it goes in the backpack or get's sold. That means most normal bandits will have equipment that only gets sold. So what the bandit leader has is probably going to be the only thing of importance, and it would mean that Obsidian would have to design a lot of different types of bandit leaders if they are going to give them different items. I think random magic items are best kept to chests and the like.

I loved these encounters because you had to think "outside the box." There were actually a number of ways to beat/avoid them. They just weren't beatable with standard tactics. I remember in the mind flayer layer looking through my inventory, checking my spell list, and thinking "Hmmm. Would this work?" After a number of failed experiments I actually think I cleaned out the whole layer.

Hmm. Maybe I'm easy to please, but I've supported a lot of early access games and kickstarters and find that Obsidian is doing a very good job. First they have fairly regular updates, some of which have alot of substance. Second they often reply to posts made about the updates. Mr Sawyer posts in a lot of non update threads as well. In fact the number of threads, replies, and posters on this forum are some of the highest I have seen on anything I have backed or pre-bought in any way. As far as the backer's site goes, I can't comment, as I'm only getting the game and not adding any special material.

I prefer the method of the old Might and Magic games. If you go the wrong way you get the s..t kicked out of you or you set off a trap that eradicates all of your characters, or you reach a box which your weakling characters can't force open yet. You go "Hmm. Maybe I'm not ready for that challenge yet." You reload and go somewhere else.

Stamina-heath system is somewhat copied from Darklands same as their event images I never played Darklands. Is the health/stamina system similar to what I described or different?

I'm not sure if this was their inspiration but there was a P&P super hero game back in the 1990s that I used to play that had a similar system with Health and Stamina. Standard attacks reduced Stamina first, only reducing health if Stamina was gone. However there were some special lethal attacks that only attacked health. These were especially deadly, sort of like Wolverine's claw attacks were supposed to be. I suppose it might be like an Assassin's death attack or the Finger of Death spells as D&D equivilents. Like I say, I have no idea if this is anything like what Obsidian is planning, but it came to mind because it's the only thing I've seen which sounds similar.

Personally I don't see this as a binary thing, there is nothing stopping an open world game from having a deep, complex and intriguing narrative as New Vegas, Betrayal at Krondor, Arcanum and the old Ultimas prove. Admittedly not every game has the budget or development scope to embrace interactivity, but when they do it seems obvious to me that they should, after all this is the key strength of the medium. That said, obviously there must be limitations because of the lack of a GM, and the superior human brain, thus my original question on what limitations are palatable. The red mist of Dead Money strikes me as a good example of a malleable barrier, along with the alarm system, in that both can be manipulated to an extent and yet still serve as an effective hard limit. Thus making the player clever and potent, and yet more satisfactorily constrained. The vagaries of weather and nature also seem more palatable, perhaps because of our intrinsic susceptibility to the elements. It was very refreshing to have to prepare and equip oneself for the trip into the northern reaches of the Serpent Isle in the game of the same name, and be punished if one should opt to ignore the repeated warnings. Of course for a high level party such considerations are lessened or vanish, as a single teleport can bypass what was previously impassable, or the weather can be tamed etcetera, which makes the designers have to work harder and smarter one suspects. I definately agree with you. Its possible, but apparently very difficult, as there are very few games in this category. Most games either fail on the side of narrative or scope.

I think too many designers are afraid to make games difficult. For example afraid of having areas much to difficult for players to enter, afraid to pose puzzles that one encounters early in the game, but can only solve later, et. I personally don't mind a "narrow" game if it offers me an interesting story. For example Knights of the Old Republic is a fairly linear game, but I liked the story, so it seemed like a good tradeoff for not being so wide.

There are games that push you to explore and try to give you all the tools to do, as well as cool things to find. Might and Magic, The Elder Scrolls, and Gothic series come to find. These types of games tend to lack much of a story and in some cases the writing and acting is dreadful (the Two Worlds games come to mind). Other games push a story so much that they limit freedom and are extremely linear (most modern Bioware games), but on the other hand they have, at least for computer games standard, a decent story and characters, so you may overlook these problems. Very few games manage a good compromise. I think Baldur's Gate (the original) was one of them. There was a story, but most of the world was open to you from the beginning, and there were very few purely linear segmants.

I am excited about a well written party based tactical game. Its been a long long time since one has seen the light of day.

The games where they really shone were in the original Bard's tale series. Bard songs were like spells. You could have one on outside of combat, and one on in combat. There were a very limited number of songs, but most were very useful without being overpowering and offered bonuses that no other classes gave (such as improved health and spell point regeneration, being able to run from combat before it began, et.)

So, you had Garrick in your party in BG1? Did anyone keep a Bard in their party at all? IMO, that was easily the worst class in all of 2E. Hopefully Chanters will be useful. On my second playthrough I went with an evil party and played him. In my first playthrough I used a fairly ineffective main character (a good necromancer), but ended up using the better npcs. In my 2nd playthrough I played a fighter with 18/96 strength and specialized in 2 handed swords, who basically mowed everything down in her path and I took Garrick. It was actually an easier playthrough for me since I knew what I was doing. I agree about Bards though, they are rather lackluster characters. Even in Pathfinder, if you want such a support character, you're probably better off going with an alchemist or inquisitor.

Normally on my first go, I try to assemble an effective party, though I will avoid NPCS who I find unappealing in terms of character. If I like the game I will replay with companions I haven't used (and are appealing).

I also fear that fighter/priest/wizard will make the most effective party in terms of mechanics. I think the rogue loses out because he is no longer the skill specialist and I'm betting the barbarian and ranger may make good alternatives as damage dealers.

It depends on how it's done. Multiclassed spell casters functioned very poorly in D&D 3.x, which is the reason for all the prestige classes such as Arcane Trickster and Mystic Theurge. For that reason I prefer a well balanced hybrid class (such as a paladin) to an unbalanced multiclassing system.

I voted "yes, for other reasons" namely that it gives more choice in character building. I like 3.X D&D multiclassing, which rarely lead to more powerful characters than single classing did. I put the caveat on this that Project:Eternity may have enough customizing within the classes that multiclassing may be more or less irrelevant.

I think its interesting that most everyone included a fighter. I'm not necessarily in love with fighters, but I had noone else in my group who I was sure could take the front, so I included him. I wonder to what degree a monk, barbarian, or paladin could fill his role? I also see the priest and wizard getting lots of love. Again, I think it maybe because we can't see good replacements for what these classes do.

Just from what we know so far, I'm curious what sort of party would people prefer. Obviously this a theoretical exercise, because we may select characters based on their personalities or how the story leads us and not their classes. I suppose I'm asking what classes intrigue you and how you would build a party based around that. Here is what I would take (based on the limited knowledge I have) Fighter Barbarian Cipher Chanter or Ranger (mostly depending on chanter mechanics) Wizard Druid (or Cleric if the druid cannot restore Stamina) Obviously I've got 2 front rank fighters and the cipher and chanter/ranger as more utility characters. For my main character I would probably not play a fighter, as I tend more towards utility characters or spellcasters.

I'm willing to admit its a point of view, but am still unconvinced by your argument. Its true that divine casters have some alternatives like the ones you mention. Many of them are at higher levels, and most I consider to be lesser alternatives to wizard spells of the same level. Things like hold person are rather iffy, because many wizards have a good will defence/saving throw. I still think its easier in a big party to have a wizard.