Lephys

That's because it'll be a Crisis System, and not a Combat System. Honestly, I don't understand why it's such a big deal, either. I prefer turn-based, for the context of Torment's design. But, if they go with real-time, I trust that they'll do it correctly. It's not like we're voting on how intelligently they should go about designing the combat. Just the basic template. "Wait... the building's going to be SQUARE instead of CIRCULAR?! I no longer have any faith in whatever business/establishment is going to occupy this building, or its staff, u_u..."

I realize that text is easier to read as hostile (as it is mostly tone-ambiguous), but I don't think sarcasm is inherently uncivil. The sarcasm was merely a tool to emphasize the point that I don't think anyone's confused about the blatant difference between technically not-good things, and deliberately evil acts. Selfishness isn't good, but I don't know if I'd say it's evil. I mean, if simply not-sharing something you could've shared (refraining from a good deed) is evil, then, by the same token, not-harming someone you could've harmed (refraining from an evil deed) would be good. "Look at all the good I'm doing! I haven't killed or harmed a single person this whole year!" Selfishness can lead to evil, but I think something beyond merely not wanting to give up something is required for downright evil to be born.

Basically, I'm not against the game doing the math for any and all resting for any and all trips. However, unless we're going to be taking 108-hour trips, I really am not going to be worried about it abstracting some rest-time. Especially when you factor in that, in the context of the escapades of adventurers, you have a lot of wonky scheduling. "We need to wait until sundown to try to see what Baron EvilMan is up to... better go get your rest now, while we have nothing better to do." Etc. That being said... what if it kept up with how long you'd been awake, and didn't prompt any travel-sleep extra-time additions unless it had been so long since you last rested? You could just have an ultra-intuitive gauge on the travel map, showing your current "weariness" level, as compared to the "I'm literally not the least bit tired" minimum and the "OMG, IS THIS REAL LIFE?" delusionally-sleep-deprived maximum. Then, whenever you go to travel, you see two projections: travel time, and weariness... ehh "cost" we'll call it. So, un-check "sleep during travel," and your trip time goes down 6 or 8 hours (or whatever... this is just an example), but your "here's how weary you'll be by the end of the trip" gauge shows a higher segment. You could even still have the "how long should we spend resting" options on the travel menu, and some kind of "automatically rest if weariness level would go beyond X during this trip" settings, etc. And just have a staged Weariness penalty set on the gauge, kind of like Hydration or Radiation poisoning in Fallout: NV. That way, you know exactly what the effects of your current travel decisions will be at a glance. "Ohhh, that's going to take me into Major Fatigue. Better rest for... 3 hours? No, that's still too close to Major Fatigue for me. Okay, 5 hours. Yup, that'll do it. I should be able to get through this next scenario without entering into Major Fatigue." I think BG and the like already kept track of how long you'd been awake. They just didn't have any allowances for any resting but manual, non-travel resting. And nothing was intuitively conveyed to you.

The only flaw there is... when are you never allowed to create a new game and get back to that very same point to try again? The ability to save and reload isn't providing the ability to mulligan. It's just providing the ability to mulligan much more conveniently. So, removing it (or forcing everyone to Iron Man it) wouldn't actually prevent anyone from trying again. It would just make trying again really really annoying and round-a-bout. The only game that truly meets your standards is the one that, once you die, deletes your serial key from existence, scratches its own disc all to hell, and wipes your entire hard drive, then brands your forehead with some symbol, so that stores will never, ever sell you another copy of the game ever again. Just like the option of getting a mod, the sheer ability to save and reload is not the issue. It's not like it's ultra difficult to get a mod. So taking saving out of the game isn't going to prevent anyone from doing anything. If you don't want to use saving like that, then you already won't (so it doesn't matter if you CAN or not). And if you DO want to do it, what good does making it really difficult do? This isn't something illegal we're talking about, so it's not hurting anyone else. For what it's worth, though, the italicized part is very true. I understand your problem with the act of save scumming, but I don't think the ability to do it is the problem. Life may not dangle sexy women in front of you when you're horny, but sexy women exist all around you, and you may see some whilst horny. Should we kill them all, just so horny dudes aren't tempted?

I do think the slightest hint of "You should probably be aware of the possibility of traps in this general area" would be most welcome, in at least the majority of situations, even if that's simply general knowledge of the area. Such as "Lots of poachers hunt out in these woods" leading to you probably deducing that there MIGHT be hunter's traps about. No need to have indicators for "there's probably a bunch of floor spikes right here in the floor, because *bloody skeleton*" every time you come anywhere near a trap (that would defeat the purpose of their being undetectable without being found), but I don't it to be "well, you'd better sneak through every single square inch of the entire game, just to make sure there aren't any traps." Of course, I don't expect silly trap placement. "Alright, guys, I'm gonna head upstairs to our room here in the tavern to get some shut-" *one of the stairs sinks abruptly, making a slight click. You notice a spiked metal ball making bone-crunching contact with the side of your head.*

Well, real-time's currently winning. So there's that. Also, you never know... it might be unlike any turn-based combat you've ever played before, and you might, at the very least, find it acceptable as opposed to rage-quit-inducing. *shrug*

If that's the absolute worst thing you think they could do to the game, I shudder to think of the design decisions you'd be perfectly fine with. Honestly, I agree, though not to the "absolute worst" extent; P:E's design would take much less advantage of turn-based combat than another game, and probably fits a lot better with real-time combat.

A) This seems pretty off-topic, as it's literally specific to a completely different game that's not even being made by Obsidian. And B) You can't bash the "Fallout lovers" without bashing inXile, themselves, because they already said that they were internally voting for turn-based. Basically, had they not opted to put it up for discussion and hold a vote, it would've simply been turn-based by default. Just for what it's worth. u_u

A) Because I said I was somehow frightened of an extra sentence. And B) Because whether or not something's necessary (by definition of the word) is a matter of taste, and something can't be both unnecessary AND a matter of taste. Is it that hard to say "You're right, but I'd still like them"? I merely explained the objective reason why I don't like them. That doesn't mean everyone HAS to not like them, or that there aren't reasons TO like them. Just like there was no reason to talk about full misses before they were added back in after the consideration of discussion on miss mechanics, because they weren't relevant to P:E? Also, it wasn't an argument. I wasn't saying "here's why this should be in P:E" or anything. It was contextual to the discussion. WERE the mechanics to represent stat/skill-based deception in dialogue, there would be a need for tags on everything (for truths versus lies). Lastly, I don't think the game's going to be devoid of dialogue-based persuasion/deception, but it's not going to be based on the "Deceive," "Persuade," or "Speech" skills. I seem to recall a quote from Josh basically saying he'd rather such things be checked against one or more stats, along with circumstances, as opposed to on the value of some skill that only serves to determine success or failure at that one act. So, actually, you could still have a check of some sort represented, but it wouldn't be a simple skill check. I honestly don't know what that would mean for the usefulness of [lie] tags without more specific information as to just how that will work in P:E, but I'd hardly say that the representation of such an active deception making the tags necessary is completely irrelevant to P:E.

To clarify, I'm pretty sure "every setting" just means "if you beef up STAT A instead of STAT B, you'll still get a benefit that will be helpful toward some useful capability for that character" and not "20 STR or 3 STR... your Warrior will be just as good at everything he does." I just wanted to throw that out before the inevitable "OMG, so it doesn't matter how we assign out stat points in P:E?" cropped up.

It might've just been post-beta (instead of post-release). A lot of people play Blizzard games in beta for several months before the actual release, so a lot of the "complaints about the game" come from the beta build.

Wait... it's completely devoid of VO? I thought it was just going to be limited.

Unless all the enemies just happen to have terrible Reflex values, spamming AOE's non-stop will be a pretty terrible tactic. Many enemies will most likely laugh at your AOE spells.

Then we're all evil, because no one is never selfish. Case closed, I guess. Doesn't matter if you slaughter an entire nation, or don't share gum with a friend. Evil is evil. No point in distinguishing the two. *dusts off hands* [/sarcasm]

I didn't even think of encounter probability. Good call, That's also a perfect example in answer to the "If kill XP is out, then when WOULDN'T avoiding combat be the best solution?" question. Answer: When time is of the essence. Better built for combat? Then you have an easier time of getting places in a rush. Built for diplomacy? Well, have fun trying to negotiate truces with all the things/people that detect you rustling through the woods as fast as humanly possible with no regard for stealth or caution at all. Not that that's the only time, but that's getting into a different discussion.

So, whenever you're confronted with enemies, all you can think of is a situation in which you miss a bunch and fail to kill them, and your whole party ends up dead? Don't get me wrong... I understand that poor design has led to games in which you can't help but think that, because lying is some kind of crazy gamble that's put into the game, instead of something that you're intended to be able to build your character to do. And I'm not telling you how to feel about it. But, you cited my last example of one that you particularly cannot stand. Is it silly for one dialogue option that invokes a skill check and another that doesn't to be distinguished from one another? What if one option was "Hi," and another was "Hi [juggle to entertain this person]?" Would you just want them both to say "hi," and that's it? Simply because you can't imagine not-failing the juggling check and that person thinking negatively of you? Forget having your lies figured out. What about a situation in which you have no idea how trustworthy some NPC is, even though they SEEM really trustworthy (they're the head of some local order of Knights who's fighting against the evil lord villain or something), and at any point in time that character could leak important TRUTHFUL information? You don't want the option to lie to them, in case they're going to give sensitive information to someone else? Just go around telling the truth to everyone, because you wouldn't want to get caught in a lie? Looking at only the potential for negatives to lying is an irrationally one-sided perspective, if you ask me. Use your brain isn't a flawed argument. "Use your brain and who cares about how complicated or high-level something is to figure out" is a flawed argument. It's a matter of extents. If you didn't use your brain at all, the game would literally play itself. There'd be no choice involved, and/or all "choices" would produce the same results (effectively a lack of choice). You can't have any dialogue at all without SOME percentage of people in the world being beneath the ability to take advantage of the game by comprehending the text. "I shouldn't have to figure anything out" is just as silly of an argument as "you should literally have to figure everything out, and there's no limit to the complexity or advanced nature of the dilemmas/information." Also, again with extents, the developer doesn't need to write "the most intelligent answer." The point is to abstract thresholds at which your character would even bother to figure something out, or would feasibly be able to in the span of the dialogue. If yes, then they comment on it. If not, then they don't. Then, you have different levels of this. The same goes for specific knowledge, rather than the intelligence level of a given option. If you have 20 Knowledge in Leaves, and someone's talking about some crazy exotic plant leaf, the abstracted system determines whether or not 20 Knowledge represents knowledge of that particular plant or not, based on rarity, etc. Maybe 20's not enough, so your character is assumed to not really know much about that leaf. If it's over 20, then you might ask about something else regarding that leaf, or correct the person talking about it, etc. (in an option). So, not to judge anyone, but if you can't figure out that a dialogue option in which your character is claiming specific knowledge about a mentioned leaf is probably based off of his Knowledge: Leaf skill, then I dare say you're going to have issues with pretty much the entire nature of the game. Granted, the options don't have any need to require an actual extensive knowledge of plant life from you, the player. If they do, I'd say that's a bit overboard. But, the same thing can be done with intelligent answers. If someone says "Ahh, sorry to keep you waiting. I was just washing up.", and your character has the option "That's strange... for someone who's delayed a meeting solely for the purpose of washing up, you sure seem to have missed a lot of dirt on your hands.", you should probably be able to figure out that such an option makes use of intelligent reasoning, whereas "Oh, no worries. Man, the sky sure is blue today, isn't it?", not so much... Also, why would you need to know what options are possible with stats you don't have? The option has no reason to absolutely tell you the source of its existence. It only needs to tell you when you're making active use of some skill or stat via a check, etc., or when you're conveying something in a specific tone that the text alone doesn't make clear. It's just like a button on a device. If the button turns on the device, then it usually says "power," or has a symbol for power on it, so that the user of the button can decide whether or not to press that button. We don't need the name of the person who built that device or installed that button on the button, or a design schematic of the whole device. Just something indicating what we can't intuitively deduce by looking at the button that we need to know to make an informed decision. If you have high intelligence, and an option is available because of that, you can still decide whether or not to choose that option, regardless of whether or not you know it specifically is available because of a certain number value on your intelligence stat. And if you don't have high enough intelligence, then you don't even see the option. Just like you don't get a readout for hit chance and damage from a crossbow if you're wielding a sword, in combat. You only see the sword options. If the most important aspect of the system is to pick the most intelligent response sheerly because it's so intelligent, then it's flawed already, as "available because of intelligence" shouldn't mean "best response." That problem isn't due to the representation of intelligence in writing responses, but, rather, to the arbitrary attachment of quality of response in any given situation to the intelligence level that's allowing for that response. Saying the smartest thing ever might get you killed, or it might get you hated, or it might make people think you know too much and therefore stop them from revealing anything else around you, etc. Just like telling anyone anything COULD result in people double-crossing you, because you don't know who you can trust. So, saying the smartest thing isn't always the smartest decision. I will say, though, that, since the existence of an extra option due to a high stat doesn't automatically make it the best (or even a good) response in a given dialogue, there isn't much reason to NOT reveal to the player that that option exists solely because of that high stat.

True, but I'm less bothered by the inaccuracy of ill-factored resting times than I am by "your party traveled for 20 hours but didn't rest at all." In fact, if you want to get down to it, you could even have a simple setting for, ehh... travel "urgency," for lack of a better term. You could choose between 4-hour camps, 6-hour camps, or 8-hour camps, for example. Something like that. This way, if you really need to get somewhere, you'll get there faster with a 4-hour camp ("We don't have time to get our beauty sleep!"), but your party will become weary (using the BG system as an example) sooner than if you had chosen longer camp time in your travel speed. You might could even just choose an actual travel speed, so that you'd make it somewhere in 6 hours instead of 8 or 10, but you'd maybe suffer some kind of stamina regen penalty or fatigue penalty. Anywho, traveling somewhere with absolutely no representation of resting while traveling is a bit silly, since you then pop out into that area with all weary characters, and you then must rest anyway. The system might as well have just had them rest during the travel, and added that time to the travel time. If my people show up somewhere weary, it should be because I explicitly told them to do so, and presumably had some kind of reason for this. Not just because that's the only way to travel.

Therein lies the beauty of human variance.

Haha. "Maybe go ahead and, I dunno... FACTOR IN THE REST BREAKS!" Who plans a road trip nowadays and is like "Okay, if we drive for TWENTY STRAIGHT HOURS, with no food, pottying, or hydration, we'll get there! 8D!"? Answer? The BG characters, if they lived today.

That, I understand. Wanting to run torture pits in a giant Necromancer dungeon, I kinda don't get. Personally, though, I wouldn't even want to be Tywin Lannister. I'm glad characters like him exist, but I don't want to control them.

A) You don't need [lie] AND [truth] tags, as the absence of a [lie] tag is already indicative of truth. B) While I understand and respect your desires to have the information presented in a different, dare I say more immersive, style, it's still a highly unnecessary amount of extra text to convey what is essentially "Here is what your character knows to be true, and here is what you can say." While I'm normally a huge fan of such styles of presentation, the dialogue option interface is already in its own little "possibilities of the future" bubble of time. It's a direct liaison between the player and the story. The options you CAN choose are displayed there, for the benefit of the player, but aren't actually a part of your playthrough's instance of the narrative until you choose them. For that reason, I don't feel the need to avoid some kind of "artificial" indicator to the player, and/or to dress it up as some immersive conveyance within the narrative, since it's telling you that you CAN lie. I don't need to elaborately comprehend precisely what my character knows about berries, in a literarily eloquent fashion, only to not-even-choose that dialogue option. It's like a button on an action bar. You put a symbol on it to indicate to the player what kind of ability will be occurring. You don't worry with making gestures required for choosing attacks, instead of button clicks, because button clicks are so artificial. Anywho, that's just me elaborating on the "why" of how I feel about this. I'm not telling anyone how to feel about it. By all means, disagree with me. Also, just for what it's worth, the other possibility for the usefulness of [lie] tags, on all lies, is the possibility of the system representing the psychological effects of lying on the person doing the lying. If you say something that you know is true, you have no trouble saying it in a way that sounds like you mean it. However, if you're lying, you've basically got to put on a good act. Hence why some people are terrible liars, and others are extremely convincing. So, IF the game decided to factor that in, you'd have to pick a "truth" that aligned with your character's actual belief, and a "lie" that did not. If you really wanted to join bandits, then "let me join you" would be the truth and wouldn't prompt any kind of skill/attribute check. If you didn't really want to join them at all, then you'd be pretending you did when you said it, so you'd have to make some kind of bluff check. Again, that's just a mechanic option. Not saying the game has to do that. But, if it did, it would make sense to distinguish between truth and lies, every single time. Although, then you run into "how do you determine which is the truth, and which is a lie?"

Dealing less than 4 damage... now THAT'S an achievement. When you're a LvL 1 Wizard, foes should be commended for somehow NOT killing you when they hit. I like this way of a possible warning around difficult enemies It'd be great if, upon your insistence that you try to go take on that Ogre at LvL 2, your companions just said "See you back at the stronghold!" and rushed off, abandoning your crazy arse.

This is a good thing, methinks. I want to bump into a combat encounter, see a guy standing around behind other obviously front-line plate-clad folk, wearing a robe, and assume "that guy's a Mage. Better go take him down fast!", only to get within range of him, and have him pull a greatsword out from under his robe, slashing the robe off as he draws it out, screaming "Ha-HAH!" as he Warriors me to death.

Alignment-ist!!! RACIST!!! (I jest...FYI) I also, personally, can never really find it in me to be evil, not even virtually. I mean, human flaws -- selfishness, revenge, etc., I get that. But, "I'm going to kill your family, who did nothing at all to me, just to make YOU suffer! MUAHAHAHA!" and the like? I don't get it either. Not wanting to BE that... again, even virtually. I don't think people who want to play virtual evil characters are bad or something. But, I just plain don't comprehend what makes that so enjoyable.