Lephys

Pooping also plays a very important role in human life. I dare say they'd be remiss not to include the extensive depiction of characters pooping, and needing to poop, throughout the game. I mean, how can you tell a story without the explicit depiction of this function?

^ I think that's why they work so hard to make sure everyone's on the same page, and that they're all drawing from that page to make their individual things. They don't just say "Hey, you draw really well... draw us some creature that can be attacked, and when you're done, we'll shelve it for a year, then stick it into the game before it ships out! 8D!" They make sure that the idea for some creature is fashioned first, and that it's relevant to the story, and the lore, and the combat, and the other systems, etc. They make sure all the art's of the same style/etc. (you don't want a creature designed however some artist tends to draw, and the environment designed however some OTHER artist tends to draw). That's what all that pre-production and rigorous structuring is for. Granted, I think you're right that a lot of projects fail because they become TOO "manufacturey." Seems like the super-huge triple-A games would have a bigger problem with this, what with a team of 100+ working on stuff instead of 20 or 30. That, and they sometimes focus a bit too hard on the tools they're using, rather than HOW they're using them. Like getting some big-name voice actor, but not really writing the character to fit very well into the rest of the lore, etc. But who cares, because that person's voice is AWESOME, right?!

I swear I've hit multiple encounters before on my way somewhere in Baldur's Gate. Because, after a random encounter, it stops you whereever you "ran into an encounter," on the map, so that you then re-choose your destination: either the same one, or a different one. Maybe I'm delusional today, *shrug*. I hate my brain.

I might be mistaken, but I could've sworn the original Baldur's Gate DOES show enemy health approximations. It just doesn't show "uninjured." It starts with "barely injured," I think. I can't remember though. I'll have to check on my laptop shortly (can't check right now). It's been a few months since I've played it (I picked up Enhanced Edition shortly after I started the original), but I seem to recall wondering that same thing while playing the original: "Hmm... I wonder if mouse-overs will tell me how hurt this enemy is...", and testing it out. My brain's even recalling trying it on something I hadn't attacked yet, only to think "Oh, it doesn't," then accidentally discovering that it shows on the injured foes while trying to choose a target while the game was paused.

The problem with slots is, while it deepens the crafting system, it doesn't prevent it from still being a glorified shopping list. Now you're shopping for things AND properties, instead of just things. In other words, you've just broken down all the items on the list into sub-items. The dynamics I'm after have to do with the actual crafting process. I want to have materials, and have a goal, and dynamically produce results, at the very least. Just like anything else in the game. Dialogue: You want someone to give you an item? You persuade them, and/or threaten them, and/or kill them and take it, and/or trick them, etc. You want to get the item, but you have to deal with unknown factors and actively work toward achieving that goal. In a good dialogue system, at least. That's why everyone complains when a game has some Speech skill that just gives you "jedi mind-trick them into giving you the object" as an option. Also, something else you got me thinking of... there's always going to be that "how do we balance the non-crafting experience with the crafting one?" You've got to be able to find useful things that take advantage of the full range of equipment properties, but then you've got to be able to craft interesting things as well. So, A) Make the advantages of crafted goods lie mostly in the uniqueness and specific properties and property combinations of the items, rather than the complete difference in quality/available properties (the keyword being "mostly"), and B) allow the system to use a salvaging mechanic, so that the otherwise redundant found items can actually be used for their materials to make specific crafted items. Heck, maybe even tie the two together. Maybe (as we've touched on before), have a skill aspect (pure technical crafting process/prowess), and a knowledge aspect. Maybe you are skilled enough at the forge to be CAPABLE of working with some special meteorite metal, but you can't do so until you actually observe and study something worked from that metal. So, you find a meteorite sword, and now you can study meteorite to make more and more various properties for meteorite-crafted items at-will. So, instead of hoping you find the 7 meteorite weapons in the entire game world, with their 7 spiffy combos of properties, and hoping those combos are to your liking, you can actually make your own once you find that first weapon. Of course, that's also where a research-y system could come into play. Not really sure where to start with that, exactly... Anywho, the strength of being able to craft items in a world in which you also find them is clearly in the specific control you have over the finished product's exact properties. If you just make the exact same stuff you can find, then it's a weak system (you're just doing something un-fun to produce a sword without paying a merchant for that sword, and/or waiting 'til you find it). If you make drastically different stuff, then no one's going to NOT-craft, because it's obviously superior to simply finding and buying stuff. So, you make it about control. You want a nice sword, with specific properties, so you craft it. And yes, does a socket-some-gems-or-what-have-you system accomplish this? It does. So then, why even have a "crafting" system for making items, when you can just find/buy them all and socket in what you want? That could work, too. My concern is more once you've decided the game's definitely going to have a legit crafting system in, making it not a glorified shopping list, plus a socketing system. If you're going to do crafting, I say actually do crafting and make it worth it, or just don't worry with a "crafting" system at all. Just say "You can customize your weapons and armor with magical gemstones. YAY!"

I realize this, but, accepting abstraction doesn't mean that it MUST be a specific abstraction, namely that you can make a small blade, but not a larger blade. It's not the end of the world if that's abstracted, but I do have an interest in trying to make a system in which that particular abstraction is not present. Also, I realize it probably wasn't your specific intention, but I'm actually fine with someone knowing how to make daggers, but not bows. Shaping metal into a dagger blade and crafting a quality bow are significantly different processes. As I said, I understand if the specific intent of your example wasn't to suggest the similarity between daggers and bows, specifically, but rather between two similar yet categorically different (in video games) things (like short swords and daggers).

The person I quoted. Neo6874. It appeared as though he had posted some other response, then pulled a pseudo-delete edit (the closest thing we can do to deleting our own posts) by posting "(actually... ignore me)" Also, I very much agree with the bewilderment as to people wanting beta access simply to play the game early. I'm interested in beta access, but I also acknowledge that I wouldn't be playing the game for entertainment purposes (no matter how nice it might be, in a way, to experience first-hand some of the systems before the game comes out), but instead for actual feedback/testing purposes on technical and creative design facets. I've done some beta testing before, but mostly only on MMOs, which are typically just big stress tests and early play, with a "Meh... *shrug*... tell us about bugs if you feel like it" thrown in.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a dwarf character somewhere in the world of P:E who was born genetically hairless? His name could be Harry.

Blarg, I'm a little late with this, but I was going to say (at the cost of probably sounding nitpicky) that I don't think the point is so much that you have no idea how they'll interpret your words/actions/choices, but rather, that you have no idea how they'll react to them. Until, of course, you actually observe them and pay attention to their mood/mannerisms, etc. In other words, you're not going to say "Hey, here, have a basket of puppies, because you deserve them," and have them somehow interpret that as "I hate you and do not wish for you to have pleasant things." Now, some people might say "Awesome! PUPPIES!!!!! ^_^! YOU'RE THE BEST!", and some people might say "That's very kind of you, but I'm actually quite allergic to dogs. Now I'm very frustrated that you just stuck a basket of puppies in my face, even though you had good intentions." Not the best example, because being allergic to puppies isn't going to be a disposition, I'm sure... but, the point is, they're not misinterpreting your intentions. It's just that... people's reactions to things are often based on multiple factors, and they don't always stem from your intentions. People don't have to get your intentions wrong to react badly to something. And there's not really JUST good and bad reactions. There are different reactions. If you have a knack for being cruel, someone might be extra helpful to you (which they wouldn't be if they weren't afraid of you, in this example instance), but, they might actually lie about some things for fear that the truth would anger you and invoke your cruelty. So, is it a good reaction, or a bad one? Well, they're going out of their way to help you, so that's good. But, you're getting some false information, so that's bad. Maybe those same particular people might help you AND tell you the truth if you're notoriously kind, instead. Of course, other factors involved with their decision to help you might be faction rep, etc, and not just "oh, he's super kind, let's help him!"

Or, the better question: Can you choose a god, and, if so, does it grant you different breastplate logos? No, seriously though, good question. Actually, if you haven't seen it, you should check out the demo video they did in showing off their improvements to that whole "2D-pre-rendered only" notion. Despite it all being 2D still, they've actually got a bunch of movement/animation going on in the environment. The water, the tall grass and trees moving in the wind, etc. It's pretty remarkable, actually. Of course, I'm not going to say "No" to descriptive text. But, a lot of visual feedback will actually be available without any text at all.

Yeah, I'm kinda just wondering at what point "expert mode" becomes basically the opposite of a cheat code. I mean, what about a mode in which your screen simply doesn't display anything at all (just a black/blank screen), to simulate your wearing a blindfold while playing, just to make it tougher? I very much like the idea of a mode that obfuscates specific values and things, but I'm just not sure the idea is to prevent the player from knowing anything about what's going on. Again, there's only so much you can hide before the tactical significance of choices goes out the window. It's the difference between "I don't know anything yet" and "I just plain have no information, ever." Imagine one of those sliding-tile puzzles (with the one tile missing, so as to provide a space into which to always be able to slide a single tile) if you flipped it over so you couldn't see the picture you were trying to assemble. At that point, it would be purely guesswork, with no amount of cleverness involved. It wouldn't even be a puzzle anymore. You wouldn't even know when you had completed the image.

*Ponder*. The only problem I have with that is... why would you be able to (for example) craft a dagger, but be literally incapable of crafting a sword? Or, if you could expertly craft a wooden staff, why wouldn't you be capable of at least ATTEMPTING to craft a wooden bow, or a wooden shield? I mean, with combat, if you lack Longsword proficiency, you can still USE one with some amount of success. You just kind of suck with it, compared to anyone even remotely skilled with it. And, similarly, if you were a spear master, you wouldn't stare dumbfounded at a sword or axe and think "I quite literally do not comprehend how to utilize this object to any extent in the act of fighting someone." Maybe a good compromise is to put proficiency-style points into item types instead of individual items? Or, maybe such restrictions are only a bother to me, and aren't really a big deal at all. *shrug*

That's kind of what I meant, in all fairness. You basically praise the design concepts (a facet of "the game"), but condemn the execution. In a way, that's almost 50/50. I don't think the whole game was just plain bad. I just think there was a lot of bad that spoiled the good. Kinda like letting ants infest a big, delicious cake. That doesn't say anything bad about the delicious cake, itself. But it really sucks that you have to consume live ants if you want the cake. And, much like that example, the major problems in the execution were really about as blatantly recognizable as "hey, this cake probably shouldn't have live ants in it." Looking at things like the recent update detailing P:E's production process, and Josh's consistent emphasis on the importance of the pre-production phase, it just seems like games like DA2 spend too little time on such things, and end up frantically trying to wing it when it comes to finishing the design and getting the game out the door. Obviously they didn't sit down in a pre-production meeting and think "Hey, we should probably only design about 10 environments, then just re-use them all! 8D!". But, what bothers me is that a lot of the big companies like them consistently allow such things to crop up. Or, they claim to want to give you choices, but then (like in DA 2) hardly allow anything to really influence/affect any major outcomes or results, because they were too focused on what's going to happen in their story to bother with what kinds of significance your choices can actually have. Or they just ran out of time for both, *shrug*. I have no idea. Whatever it is, I don't know how they can be okay with it. I know part of it is often publishers, who impose certain deadlines and procedures without really exploring what's in the best interest of the creative quality of the game, but... I just don't know. Just seems like their priorities are backwards. "Let's make sure we have an epic voice-acting cast and fantastic visuals, THEN we'll worry about how well the gameplay actually works, u_u... and how much the environments are actually different. You know... IF we have time." Annnnywho. Someone was right when they said this thread wasn't about hating on Bioware. Haha. But, to give relevance? What would P:E look like if it catered to the worst of us? I'd imagine it would have its priorities horribly out of order, and such problems would ensue.

You mean, almost like proficiency? As in, "you haven't yet picked Swords, so you can't craft Swords. But, once you pick Swords, you'll be [Crafting_Skill_Value] good at crafting Swords, just like you are at everything else you're able to craft."?

It was only horrible in comparison to its own potential. It's just disappointing, seeing what should've been a really great game crippled by its own faults, is all.

Tangents, FTW!!! Haha. I like that system. Not "as opposed to all other systems." Just... it's just plain a good, solid idea. For the record (in case I made it seem otherwise -- which is how it seems with your "I'd much rather that your crafting skill determines..."), I'm completely in favor of a crafting skill governing things. I just don't want the value of the skill to be the only factor is all. I don't think making it a simple put-points-in-it-at-level-up skill, then granting you static, simplistic recipes at every numerical level of that skill and calling it a day produces anything but a bland system. I really like your way. Maybe you always have to put points into a specific aspect of crafting (like you said, Staffs, Swords, Helmets, Shields, etc.), but your aggregate point total is still your overall "crafting skill." So, 3 in Staffs(staves), 4 in Helmets, and 2 in Daggers would give you 9 total Crafting skill. Basically, the specifics would depend on a LOT of things, but the idea is that if you have 30 total Crafting skill and only 5 in Staves, and you try to make a Stave, you're going to have better chances of good things happening than if you have 20 total Crafting skill and only 5 in Staves. The 5 specifically in Staves will allow options (such as mods in your example) that no amount of overall Crafting skill will provide. But a really low total Crafting skill will lower your general performance at crafting (the materials required, success chance, exceptional success/bonus chance, etc. -- things that apply to all things you make, and draw from your general experience and practice crafting items in general). In other words, if you make a hundred swords (for example), then try to make some armor, you shouldn't be a COMPLETE noob at the armor, because you should already be quite familiar with the forge, at the very least. There might even be categories of things (weapons, armor, accessories... or maybe categories by material -- metal, wood, leather/cloth, consumables, gemstones, etc.) that receive synergy bonuses. So that points in Swords apply to metal armor crafting a bit, but do not apply to brewing potions or cooking food (for example... if you were to have all such types of crafting in, and tied to a skill). I realize P:E has decided (thus far) to forego a Crafting skill, but I still find it valuable to discuss the possibilities. A lot can be taken from it, even to enhance a skill-value-less system. No worries. That whole bit was basically a small response directly to you, followed by just a giant tangent/ramble. I didn't mean for the whole thing to be some big coherent point intending to challenge others or anything. It was admittedly pretty stream-of-consciousness, heh. I wouldn't even fault anyone for not-reading it.

@jethro: Thanks for that. Glad to know my sincere efforts at discussion are "useless" to you. You think I take the time to respond to people with 15-minute responses because it makes me feel smart and I like being a cryptic d-bag? I'm glad you think so highly of me. I really appreciate it, and I look forward to spouting useless nonsense at you in the future. Enjoy your standard-setting intellect.

No worries. I mostly understood your meaning. I was trying to say that your thoughts on the matter were not the same as those I am baffled by. And see, you can choose the death. That's why it's an option now. Some people might enjoy the game saying "okay, you didn't actually die die, but you're pretty effed up, and probably need to get to a hospital," allowing them to continue on and possibly still make SOME use of that character, rather than either losing them forever, or having to trek around completely devoid of them until they magically revive them at a temple, etc. In a video game, you're going to try again in some capacity. Be it a reload, or another playthrough, etc. So, it's not exactly ridiculous for the game to allow you to skip the "re-do" part at the cost of a penalty, so that you can keep going, but not without consequence. Permanent death, maimed-state penalty, or replay something you already did to get back to where you are now without death OR maiming... the choice is yours, but there is no consequence-less choice, and there shouldn't be.

I would agree... IF the previous games' problems could be chalked up to engine limitations. 8P Not that I mean that there's no chance it'll be a good game. But... I wouldn't draw any kind of "probably" from a shiny new engine. For the record, I don't hate the Dragon Age games. I just hate how disappointing they've been (mainly the second one). After you've made a game, you should be able to make the 2nd one better, not worse. But, they're so focused on selling people a product that they're not coherently crafting a very nice game. With a game like DA2, I could've playtested that thing and told them what all the reviews would say before they even released it. And speaking of DA2... what could they POSSIBLY have put into the game that was worth re-using 15 environments 5 times a piece? Honestly, that just seems like bad planning. It's one thing to decide "Okay, we're going to re-use some interiors," like... a cave here, or a house there (houses could feasibly look VERY similar, anyway)... but to just suddenly say "Agh! We're gonna re-use EVERYTHING about seventy times!"? If they'd never made a game before, I'd maybe attribute that to the complexity and difficulty of video game production. But... come on...

I do enjoy the masks. In every single Assassin's Creed game, you get some spiffy armor set you can optionally unlock and use. My favorite was in Revelations. It was supposed to be the armor of Ishak Pasha. It had one of those awesome Janissary-style masks. I cannot find a good picture at the moment (they're all at weird angles and/or far away so you can't really see the mask), and I can't access image-storage sites at the moment (with which to properly post a picture). But, if you search for Ishak Pasha armor, you can see some examples.

Thanksgiving present more likely. It'll give new meaning to "Feast your eyes on this!" I yet once more encourage you (if it isn't already planned) to urge someone to approve working a boatload of all you guys's concept stuff into lore books/manuscripts throughout the game. And/or the "codex"/journal or what-have-you. It would be PERFECT! Account of a Cean Gula in a book? Slap the artwork in there (as if someone in the world attempted depicting one). You've already made all that glorious, glorious artwork, so it wouldn't really be much extra work to plug it into the game, 8P

You do something for your own reasons. Other people react a certain way, regardless of your reasons or whether or not they know them. Welcome to RPGs, my friends. If you do something you don't feel is cruel, but it understandably could be seen as cruel (for example), then it seems as though it was a significant and weighty decision. Which is more important at that moment: Not being regarded as cruel, or accomplishing whatever it is that would mark you in the eyes of some as cruel? I'm not really sure where worrisome levels of meta-gaming come into that. You have two mutually exclusive benefits, and you pick one. Whether you pick one because that's what you would really do in that situation, or pick one because you're trying to get the "best" outcome for your characters (which is STILL determined completely by you) is up to you. As for you petting a kitten, and everyone labeling you "cruel"... I don't see that happening. So, I'm not seeing evidence for concern that developer intent will somehow override or clash with the player experience. The whole point is that they don't intend for you to do a specific thing. They just give you the ingredients, and you decide how to use them.

That's ironic. Would you be disappointed to if gameplay had walls of text? Because that's actually what a lot of backers would like to see in-game as well. Save that for my birthday (April Fool's Day). "Alright everyone! Time for some long-awaited IN-GAME FOOTAGE! 8D!!!!" *shows in-game reading of a lore book on Orlans... and that's it*

I dunno, but it sound a lot like you might've killed his father, and probably should prepare to die.

Hehe. Innovative things like COMBAT, and GRAPHICS! 8D! Obviously they just invented the stronghold. What WILL Bioware come up with next? I can't wait! I will say that I enjoyed the Mass Effect games for the most part. And, starting in the 2nd one, they had an interesting ability-firing mechanic. That was possibly innovative (I don't know if anyone else had abilities that fired parabolically like that... *shrug*). But, yeah, it wasn't because they re-invented the RPG or anything. And Dragon Age... just... wow. The first one wasn't too terrible or anything, but it certainly wasn't spectacular. Game developers nowadays really do love to throw out the word "innovative" a lot. It's as if they just pretend you've literally never seen it before, just because some handful of big games haven't used the EXACT SAME IMPLEMENTATION in the last like... 3 years. Suddenly, that means it's innovative or revolutionary.