High Octane 881

I think the general consensus is YES. We need a variety of differnt encounters to keep things interesting. Something that previous Infinity Engine games have pretty well excelled at. My #1 concern when it comes to enemy type is have a LOT. Screw seeing the same three types of Orc warrior/Orc mage/Bigger Orc Warrior, I want to be pushing moster manual territory. If you're making a world....make a WORLD and all the creepy crawlies that belong in it.

Spring 2014 cannot come soon enough.

Avoidable for the most part. If the devs are willing to put in the time and effort good side missions can be fulfilling stories within themselves rather than mindless go to x, fetch/kill y, return to z for reward. That's not to say that bounty quests or other such petty "town needs" quests aren't welcome, but if I can take a look at it and immediately identify it as "filler" then I consider it a failure.

Not sure if serious....

I agree and disagree. Some spells certainly should be subtle at most. Shevek's Stoneskin I think is an excellent example of this. In previous games your entire sprite looked like a boulder and glow... couple this with the half dozen other defensive spells that would be up at a time and your mage would look like a walking blur of effects. Granted a lot of this could be blamed on current technological capabilities. Subtlety in an Isometric game at the time would be a lot to ask for. On the flip side of the coin...if I'm bringing down hell with some earth shattering spell, I want to see that portrayed on screen with an equally awesome effect.

We seem to be reverting to "kiting" when the OP appears to have intended "pulling" to be the topic of discussion, and something that I was (at the time) shameslessly guilty of during my original playthroughs of IE systems. It is kind of ludicrous that I can recall pulling single enemies out of a group of 10 to their impending doom. This is certainly something I would like to avoid in PE. I do not believe however, that finding clever ways to single out individuals should be entirely avoided. I believe the term to use here is "as intended". Rather than exploiting an antiquated aggro system (for lack of a better term), I feel there should be a way for individuals to be drawn away from the group, ambushed, or otherwise singled out....as the devs intended. These could be through numerous means....stealth, distractions (Mark of the Ninja comes to mind), traps. Video games have evolved in the past decade that isometric RPGs have been absent. Let the game mechanics reflect that please?

The BG series was enthralling to me. I do come from a heavy pen and paper background so that is what first shoved me into BG1. That being said I have a bias when it comes to the gameplay mechanics of the BGs vs other available RPGs. In reality though the entire Bhaalspawn storyline was what really kept me rooted to those games. It was gripping in a way that I couldn't let go, like a book that you just can't set down. I remember a post in a different thread about not wanting to start off as the "superhero" and not wanting a "save the world" questline, which is exactly what BG1 offered IMHO. Obviously this changed significantly in later titles. BG1s story was primarily based on your characters desire for answers to events that were affecting him(or her) alone. Until the last quarter of the game you had no idea that there was even something greater than yourself at risk and to me that elevated it rather than being used as a cheap opener. Instead of beginning your journey with "The world is in peril and only you can save it" you become fully invested in the adventure before you have any idea of the implications. Hell even at the end of BG1 you have no idea what is really going on. That's something I miss. Today's games are almost 100% catered towards instant gratification, and that leaves no room for story/character development. Ultimately what I want from PE is a game that (like BG) gives me a REASON to be the hero. Don't tell me the world needs saving and I'm the only one that can do it "just cause". Take me down a path that gives me a purpose. Follow the oldschool formula and let the simplicity of a selfish endeavor grow into a powerful and epic adventure.

It used to always frustrate me that on the rare occassion that you did find what would typically be a terrain advantage, you select your mages spells and unpause and immediately he advances toward level ground regardless of horizontal distance. I'm not sure how much effort should be put into it but the ocassional highground would be nice to run accross with the capability of being taken advantage of.

I wouldn't worry about that too much. Borderlands acknowledged what it is and wore it proudly. If this is anything like older IE games then the popculture references will be subtle if noticeable at all.

Smart idea. Really I'm all for anything that expands past a black and white or fully linear story line. IRL few decisions have only two choices or outcomes. Most have multiple outcomes of varying "success" based on differing viewpoints and resulting from a plethora of methods of attack. Edit:Implementation into a video game format though...that's a scary thought.

I like where your head is at and I personally would probably find it to be an enjoyable mechanic. I sadly don't have the time to commit to P&P RPG anymore and truly miss the amount of depth and out of box decisions that the format allows, so naturally I would love to see anything that allows the player to branch out and take a chance with an outlandish idea. That being said I'm not sure how the rest of the PE demographic would feel about something like this. While we're on that note...would the devs even bother implementing an idea that will largely be ignored/ridiculed/underappreciated? The average player is not going to take a high risk scenario given the option. They are going to default to their tried and true method of "smash it in the face until it dies". Ironic then that in a way it would be a "High-risk High-return" (thank you Kaz) situation for Obsidian to consider including.

I could be wrong but I do believe what you're describing is exactly what one of the modes being placed in the game is. "Trial of Iron is like Temple of Elemental Evil's Ironman Mode. When starting a Trial of Iron game, player has one save game that persists for the entire campaign... or until player characters die. And if they die, the save game is deleted."

Randomization is hardly the answer to the concern you have IMO. BG and BG2 are two of my most replayed games ever simply based on the value and depth of the gameplay initially. Randomization is simply a mask for tedium. Aside from that, as a couple of others posted before me, it can take a drastic tole on the story telling mechanics of the game. Of course the boss of that particular dungeon is going to be located in his "throneroom" that's where it makes sense for him to be. That being said I'm all for "random" wandering encounters so long as there is some restraint shown with their distribution. There definitely don't need to be three groups of trash monsters wandering around the spanse of every explorable map. Some of my most memorable encounters from the BGs were the "randomly" placed "side quest" encounters that you could only learn about if you just happened to stumble upon them while wandering through the wilderness. THAT is part of what brought me back for literal weeks of playtime over the course of nearly a decade on those games. As for noisy enemies...something I vaguely remember is scrolling around through the nearby fog of war listening for the yips of Kobolds. I think it's a great mechanic that is strangely left out of a lot of games. Not saying you're wrong...but I'll take very well scripted encounters over random pointless trash any day. Give me a reason to kill the fools before me.

I'm concerned about this. I'm sure we have all faced game breaking bugs and wished we had saved that one extra time to avoid backtracking 4 hours.