Lephys

Never tell a player they are "playing the wrong way" like that. Ever. I've gotta agree with Trashman. I mean, obviously the game should be properly designed so it's not some baffling chore to try and figure out what quests you have time for and what quests you don't. But, if the game presents it clearly, and makes it known that you have a limitation, then accepting that limitation and subsequently complaining about it after-the-fact is pretty silly. The fact remains that there are wrong ways to play a game. If you fire up a First-Person-Shooter and just run around the levels, intentionally not-firing any of your weapons, ever, or using any grenades or your knife or anything, then you're quite literally playing the game wrong. The game involves getting as many kill-points as you can, and you're not even attempting to get any value of kill points, much less a high value. So, yes, if you said "This is stupid! I should be able to win with what I'm doing!", I would say "Negatory, Ghost Rider. You shouldn't."

I would just like to emphasize that I don't think "linear" means "you can draw a line between all the things you can do in a playthrough," but rather "you pretty much can't stray from a single line that makes up the story and always has the same shape/direction/length."

I've got to applaud your verbification of TARDIS, as I immediately knew exactly what you meant. ^_^

Wow. You managed to take the words "up close" so far out of context that they needed a passport to reach your destination. I'd try to point out just how you did it, but I can see that this is an infinite loop of clarification and context-point splicing. Thanks for clearing that up. My point was absolutely the very powerful need to represent it, obviously, as can be seen here: Oh... wait. What did pretending I didn't say that already accomplish? That's right... nothing. I literally am incapable of comprehending how you even come up with such responses, unless you just read like half of everything I say. Did you see "If you wanted to represent a glowing ring, for example," then just decide I was asking "But how do we represent a glowing ring on a tiny model? Because I have no idea, but we HAVE to represent it visually!"? I don't know how to get on whatever wavelength you're operating on. I'm truly sorry. Because in real life, you're IMMEDIATELY aware which "character" is you, and which is not you, because you're only controlling YOU. In a game, you have an interface, reliant HEAVILY upon visual representation, that functions as your control board for multiple different people. How is that incomprehensible? You ONLY need to know who's who amongst those you're controlling because it's a game and you're simply interfacing with a set of characters you're supposed to have direct and intuitive control over. I give up. You closed your mind to my reasoning a long time ago. I don't even know why you've been responding this long on this particular matter.

Allow me to simplify: Snake is to real world as Skuldr is to imagined world. In the real world, heat is a thing that can be sensed, and there happens to be an animal that can sense it (a snake, that wasn't designed specifically to prevent adventurers from sneaking past it so easily). In the imagined world, some manner of soul essence is something that can be sensed, and a Skuldr is an animal that happens to exist in this particular world and happens to be able to sense souls. The link isn't between a snake and a Skuldr. It's between each animal and its respective "reality."

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I wasn't aware we had any official idea what portion of abilities would be per-encounter, beyond "some." So, that might be a little misleading to random forum-goers.

Not arbitrary, simply abstracted. It's not that, in the lore, a person cannot lie down and relax/sleep in this area because something prevents it. It's because you, the player, are not allowed, by the game's programming, to force your characters TO rest in this specific spot, under these specific circumstances, and/or this many times in a given timeframe, etc. for a plethora of small reasons that it would be ludicrous to try and individually represent, so you abstract them into a simple "Nope" when you click rest. Basically, you're just specifying the criteria under which your party WILL rest, not where in the world people are capable of resting. It's just like in certain games how you get a message that says "You cannot drink any more potions." What it means is, "If you drink another potion right now, your character is just going to vomit it back out, because his stomach is full, so we're not even putting in the time-wasting option of watching your character wastefully drink-vomit potions away." Going more extreme, it's the same reason you have no option to lop off your own foot. Sure, your character's sword is sharp enough to do it, but the game simply doesn't even entertain that option, because it's a waste of time. There are other options that less-abstractly represent resting (so it doesn't reach the "insta-resting" point) that would clearly nullify the function of a rest limitation, as you would literally be limited by finite resources (time, materials, food, things that attack/prevent you from resting, etc.).

For what it's worth, I just really wanted to know what you meant by "well-crafted," so thank you for taking the time to answer, ^_^ And I hear ya. Even about the map thing. I couldn't even tell you where half the places are in the Wheel of Time books, in relation to each other, or the shapes of their borders, etc., but each nation/region/city has so much friggin' character in that series that you can't help but get kind of attached to them. And, strangely enough (human psychology and all that, maybe?), those awesome maps in the beginning of the books make it feel like a world full of character and significant detail, even before you start reading about it all. I think the simplest way I can put my take on the whole linear-vs-non-linear thing is... The world/setting needs to supply all the reactive scenarios, and it should be up to the player to serve as the catalyst. Think of a bunch of cauldrons, each filled with 70%-complete potions, and the character has to go around adding the final ingredients. But, different final ingredients will result in completely different end-products, even though you're always dealing with the same starting 70% of the mixtures. Sometimes, there are cauldrons that may or may not have the lids off, or that may start out in different mixtures depending on how the player handles previous ones. But, the player never just determines all 100% of a cauldron's contents. I think you can do this, and still have the cauldrons geographically spaced out, and have the overall path/sequential link between them be a lot more interesting than a single straight line. However, you've ultimately got to start at one, and arrive at another. You can't just literally go in any direction you so choose at any time. And you can't just ALWAYS get to go wherever you want, at any given time, with no consequences, or that means the story never is important enough to require your action within any specific limitations. It's basically a priorities list. Sure, you can go rescue that kitten before you go deal with these bandits who are plotting to take over this city, but you can't just run off and check out 72 sets of ancient ruins for 5 weeks, scattered around the globe, THEN expect the bandits to not have done anything in the amount of time it took you to travel the globe aimlessly exploring. It's not even that fine of a line, really. But, I digress... I WILL say that, though I don't have any proof, I believe your heavy concerns for Obsidian's handling of this matter are for naught. I don't think they're going to do what you think they are. Pure hypothesis, but, I really, truly don't. I believe you may be overly-worrying yourself, in this regard, before there is sufficient evidence or reason to do so. Not that I think you sit around all day with raised blood pressure because you can't stop thinking about how Obsidian's gonna mess up the story and setting, heh. But, I'm just saying... I recommend giving them the benefit of the doubt, until we know more,

It was a weak attempt at humor... What? I'm dead serious. I believe rjshae was trying to clarify that "I want a munchkin for a pet..." was a weak attempt at humor, citing your "I think familiars and animal companions of past fantasy games would be enough" reply in order to say "I'm sorry you seemingly thought I was being serious there." Clarification Force, GOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I will give them credit for the way they handled the shuttle pilot (Steve? I can't remember his name now... been a while since I played through the game) in Mass Effect 3. Best handling of a homosexual character in a game I've ever seen. He was a character who happened to be gay. But, that didn't automatically make him flirt with everyone in sight, and make the story go "HEY, DID WE MENTION HE'S GAY?!". It was great. He was a really good character, too, even as a more minor character.

All right, I just want to say that I'm truly not trying to suggest your words here are ridiculous, or anything of the sort (text may have conveyed otherwise here without the disclaimer), but you do seem to be contradicting yourself in a way. Player convenience should "take a back seat" (in other words, who cares how easily the player can tell them apart without making sure to place specific distinctive "decorations," for lack of a better word, on the characters' armor?) But then, we can't have 2 differently-proportioned breastplates for a male and a female because that would be something for player convenience, because really, in the game world, the characters would be able to tell each other apart up-close (because of little differences in their armors and proportions and such that aren't conveyed at such a distant view as the player's view of the gameplay action), correct? So why even put in different armor colorings and plumes and helmet shapes and cloaks and insignias and tabards, if the characters don't actually need that stuff to tell each other apart? Why not just say to hell with things that purely serve player convenience and call it a day? Do you get my meaning? I'm not actually saying plumes and helmet shapes and equipment "accessories" are bad and shouldn't be in the game (the "why not remove them" question was to make a point). But, realistically (not for player convenience), the characters might be trying to blend in as much as possible (so they wouldn't have easily-identifiable markings all over them or distinctive helmets, etc.), OR they may simply be uniformed as a single unit (so they all get the same style and coloring and helmets and tabards, etc.), which is PERFECTLY reasonable. In which case, mixing and matching things would serve no other purpose than player convenience. Does that not make sense? Even if you still don't want slightly differently-shaped breastplates, I just want to know if that makes sense. That's all. Hah... small psychological differences? Look, I have absolutely no idea what the specifics were in the work you did in games, so citing that has absolutely zero impact on anything I just said (it simply isn't useful against the point I made, without any specific examples that counter my own). Allow me to make another example, so that maybe you can say "Ohhh, yes, I get what you're saying. I still disagree on other points, but I'll stop claiming that you're making stuff up about designing tinily-represented things that are displayed on a pixel-grid.": A glowing ring. If you want to visually represent a glowing ring, and you're playing a game that's like the Witcher or something, you can probably just apply a glow effect to the ring, itself. It'll be subtle, but easily noticeable whenever looking at the character's hand (when it's not happenstancically impeded from view). BUT, in an isometric game like P:E, you would probably want to either apply a glow effect to the character's entire hand (to signify that something worn on the hand was producing a glow), or just simply not even try to visually represent the ring as glowing from a specific part of the character model at all (because making just the ring glow would result in like... 1 pixel of blue "light," and you'd think "Erm... is that just a sapphire? Maybe it's just a blue ring? Maybe it's a Christmas light? A tiny LED bulb? I can't really tell if that's a glowing effect or not..." Does that make sense? Just that. I'm not even directly applying any of this to any other point in the argument at this moment in time. You just keep acting as though the attributes of scaling I've described are non-existent, and that I'm a lunatic. Because, who goes into so much detail about things that are completely false? (Implying I'm a lunatic is not the same thing as calling me a lunatic, so please no "I didn't call you a lunatic" response. I know you didn't.) A point of reference! Yes! Okay, you acknowledge that you'd probably have a visual cue just from the difference in height/bulk between a male and female human wearing the same armor side-by-side. So, I ask this simple question: If the female's torso proportions (shoulders-to-waist, hips-to-waist, etc... not simply "the thickness and height of her whole torso, as relative to the man's torso") are pretty different, why would it be so ridiculous for her to have a differently-proportioned piece of armor that also happened to produce a further minor difference in visual dinstinction? Hmm? Everyone's made this SO powerfully about just "females should get a different breastplate for the simple, useless fact that they happen to be females," but how would this be ANY different from two differently proportioned men? If you took a breastplate from a huge, solid Dwarf whose waist was wider than his chest, then you gave it to a thin, extremely toned, v-shaped-torso (think Bruce Lee) Elf, you wouldn't just click a corner of the breastplate model and scale it down without changing the proportions. The Elf would surely need the bottom of the breastplate taken in quite a bit as compared to the top (the difference between his shoulders/chest and the Dwarf's would not be as great as the difference between their waists/hipbones. So, why would this be any different for someone with the same physiological difference who happened to be female? Again, you've already said you'd like fitted armor to exist in the game, so we can argue about how to handle fitted armor all day long. But, how does anything suggest that a female should not have a distinguishably different breastplate than a dude, ever? The only reason I went ahead and said "Yeah, it should probably just morph-change when you unequip a breastplate from a dude, then equip it on a female" is because (and I even stated this) that's already the approach Obsidian talked about in that race-modeling update (upper 40's?). Whether or not you want it to morph on it's own is a completely different debate than "a female's breastplate should never, ever appear distinguishably different from a male's, u_u." It's not even about boobs (although, a female who happened to possess a considerable bosom -- I'm assuming the world isn't utterly devoid of curvy females who can't help the DNA they got and still want to wear plate armor -- would probably affect the proportions (again... NOT BOOB-FORM PROTRUSIONS IN THE ARMOR! Just overall breastplate proportions!) of the armor, just like a man's huge upper-body muscles would as compared to a scrawnier/differently-shaped man. So, I find it difficult to see where I'm being unreasonable, and I would really like your thoughts on this, specifically. A better question is "Why does the inability to tell the difference between Jim and Steve somehow mean that you should not be able to tell the difference between Jim and Sarah?" Might as well ask "Why should I visually be able to tell the difference between Wizard abilities and Fighter abilities if I can't tell the difference between two Wizards' abilities?" I never said "armor shape should ALWAYS let you tell the difference between ANY two entities in the game, EVER!", so I don't see your example as problematic to my stance in any way. Although, since there will be a very limited number of companions (of various classes and races, I would imagine), I don't think it's really all that much trouble for even 2 of them to not be the exact same height, shape, size, skin color, hairstyle, footsize, etc. I don't think it's too much to ask that we don't have 5 companions who look identical, when there are only like 9 or 11 or so, total. I would dare say the art team was doing a poor respect in being creative, at that point. If you go out of your way to make 5 identical companions in the... what is it, Hall of Adventurers? Then, at that point, the player has voluntarily created a lack of distinguishment in the world. Not to mention this goes back to the "I didn't ask for everything to always be distinguishable." I just think that, if 2 things are already distinguishable (i.e. different physiques/proportions), then there's no reason to completely negate that with generic armor shapes that are EXACTLY identical, THEN say "Oh, you wanted to tell the difference between those two characters that you could already tell the difference between before applying this armor to both of them? Well, you'd better use these entirely optional accessories and decorations that will make you stand out from a mile away to any NPCs who might be after you." When I suggest the use of tiny bulges for distinction, this will be relevant. Until then, I'll stick with overall physique differences throughout the entire character "silhouette," and tiny bulges will remain useless, along with separate from my argument. I love everything you just said. Even with that system in place (which is awesome, I think), it would still be Obsidian's prerogative to have the armor "automorph" itself to each individual character/race/physique (even if only subtly... I would hope subtly), as you'd still have an abstracted "this Dwarf is a foot-and-a-half shorter than that Dwarf, but is still twice as wide as a Gnome, so the Small armor doesn't really work, but the Medium armor is too tall." In other words, you'd still have instances where the 3 static sizes would just-plain not fit a character model without some visual abstraction (of a slight range of proportions within each size -- Small, Medium, and Large). That's the only reason I'm totally cool with auto-morphing armor (and because of resource-saving factors that I just have to take their word on, since they're the professional design team and I'm just some noob). Like I said, I wouldn't be at all averse to a system in which there were 3 general sizes (or more, but still a small number) of armor, so that it would either fit or it wouldn't, PLUS a "fit this to this particular character, so that no one else can wear it, but that character gets further bonuses" option, and that only then would it visually fit that person's physique (still not talking skin-tight, here, just to clarify, but maybe "People in history didn't actually fit it like this very often because of economic factors, cost-versus-effectiveness-gain, etc., but it's still realistic and functional in design.") Like you said: All things are abstracted a bit. And you have to draw the line somewhere. But, anything within that line is fair game, methinks, as there are benefits to things (such as the player's ability to distinguish, or sheer enjoyment of personalization/customization, etc.) that aren't even factors in real life. No floating battlefield commander cares that Cedric looks uniquely like Cedric in his armor and whatnot, and Galad looks uniquely his own style, as well. But that is the case in a game. And I don't think that should overrule realism/verisimilitude (when not dealing with actual realistic/historical items), but I also don't think it isn't worth considering, so that it can be appeased/benefitted when an abstraction is within reason. Stop apologizing for nothing already... It shouldn't be a problem with high resolutions and monitors. Not to mention that models aren't 2D renders anymore. They are 3D models so detail gets preserved a lot better. Also, you have zoom levels so it's harldy a waste. It's more of a metter on the difference on what the devs should focus than an actual big diagreement. Personally I feel the devs should make a model that looks good zoomed in and not waste time fiddling and blowing up differences for maximum distance, since the tools for great visibiltiy are already there.

EDIT: Whoops... Meant to edit this into my previous post (since it was so fresh) instead of making a 2nd post, 8P... You're inadvertently using different criteria for a comparison between crafting and combat. In combat, one could argue (along the exact same reasoning) that it only provides an immediate reward after acquiring the skill/abilities, acquiring the equipment, then finding a group of hostiles to engage. Again, the only difference being that, with combat, you get to do a lot more than just click a button (you get to make strategic, reactive decisions and deal with the actual complex process of achieving your goal), while with crafting, you get to click a button. I know it immediately begs the question "Why would you reduce a combat system to clicking a button to decide victory?!", but if you reduced the combat system to that, it would not be much more exciting than crafting. (That isn't saying crafting is 100% as exciting as combat is, if handled correctly; only that crafting can be a lot more exciting than clicking a button allows it to be). And that's perfectly fair, too. I don't advocate a system that forces you to engage in in-depth crafting, lest you miss out on incredibly useful/superior products. And I'm not trying to run a "decide you'd personally prefer an in-depth crafting system" campaign to change everyone's minds or anything. I'm trying to go about this objectively (ignoring the fact that I probably enjoy crafting more than the average player, as much as I can) and dig up any non-preference-based value in a better crafting system than we typically see (recipes + button clicking and we'll call it a day).

Agreed. Even though I advocate a more in-depth system for crafting, I would like to see the worst possible outcome be "You spent more resources to make a regular iron sword, rather than an in-any-way-improved iron sword." I'm not against RNG being a mild variable, then, but it should be directly proportionate to character skill (the higher the character's skill, the higher the RNG minimum value becomes). Also, for what it's worth, I think basic recipes could still serve a purpose as a simplified crafting "middle ground" area for the people who enjoy the existence of crafting but don't want to specifically spend time engaging in crafting, and don't mind not partaking in the exclusive content that goes with it (potentially improved equipment). What I mean is, (to put it overly simply), if you can only find as high as a +10 sword in the whole game, without any crafting at all (buying/looting only), then I think the simple crafting (probably taking specific materials to a blacksmith or something, and/or legendary items) might get you the "equivalent" of a +12 sword with some cool extras, and the in-depth crafting system (characters actually crafting the stuff at stronghold or something) need not give you anything better than that, in the long run, but could simply provide a slightly quicker means of getting that, or a finer degree of customization/control over the specifics of your crafted equipment. I'm not looking for "Well, you can choose not to partake in this crafting system, but you're missing out on TWICE-AS-GOOD equipment than you can get through any other means, u_u" or anything. It's no different from different classes. If you wanna play a Fighter, and ONLY hand-control your warrior-types in combat (and leave all the spells and spell-effects to the companion AI), then you should be able to do that just fine. You might have a tougher time of certain fights and such, but it shouldn't go from "easy if you control them and/or play as a caster" to "now impossible without extreme micro-management," on just a general playthrough (not Expert Mode/Hard/etc.).

That's easy. Shape-change spell on your invisible character, transforming them into a tiny spider. They crawl in (not even detected as a spider), then return to normal form behind the person in question. Throat-slitting/hostage situation proceeds as planned. 8P Unless you have a Mage security camera, of course. (I get what you're saying, though, and you're right. I'm being half silly with that example, but also half serious). Also, I just thought of something else regarding the broader topic. You should probably be able to decide whether or not you re-position (actually walk up to speak face-to-face with a person) or not. Imagine you're going to meet someone for a quest, and this person is a trusted person. BUT, you have the opportunity to discover that they're trying to set you up and have you (or someone in your party) killed and make it look like someone else did it. You find out about this, and you know there'll be some manner of ye olde sniper on a rooftop or something (someone in with the guards, surely, so that security would let them get into such a position for a public meeting with some noble guy, etc.). Annnnnywho, the point is, you cast some kind of "protection from missiles" spell on that character, then send him in as if nothing is out of the ordinary, and you have people you trust (maybe just your party, maybe someone outside of it) watching for the shooter when the attempt is made. BOOM! Crossbow bolt bounces off your shield/disintegrates (whatever effect...), and everyone is immediately surprised. Wayyyyy awesomer than ONLY having the opportunity to say "Jig's up, Mr. Nobleman! I know there's a shooter somewhere on the roof, and that you're trying to have me killed, and that I can't prove any of this yet!" Even if it's just worked into the dialogue system (dialogue options for preperatory ability uses, etc., so you don't have to manually, as the player, work out the exact details of when and where you cast the spell, and how long it will last, etc.), so that you have some sort of "Okay, here's the plan" meeting with your party before you go into the meeting with the spell on you, and you get to choose what the plan is, and one option involves spelling yourself against missiles. My favorite thing about your posts is that absolutely nothing fails to be ludicrous enough to immediately warrant extreme sarcasm. I'm gonna get you a Jump To Conclusions mat (from Office Space) as a gift, because it seems like something you'd enjoy. 8P A) He never said "I want to ensure that the main character NEVER stands in the front lines or initiates dialogue, ever." B) Have you even allowed any mental effort to be expended simply considering the possibility that you could (even if only sometimes) control another party member (besides the main character) in a dialogue and still choose options? I mean, you do control their formations and combat movements and ability-timings and such, right? Why would deciding what they say be so out-of-the-question? C) The fact that Wizards can potentially wear heavy armor and could optionally be designed as front-line folk isn't a very good solution to the potential problem at hand. "As long as you never pick other options perfectly available to you as a caster (like being physically weaker and specializing in ranged effectiveness), there isn't a problem. So, problem solved! 8D! All you have to do is be railroaded into certain options! ^_^"

I think that's a bit of a reach. There are snakes and other animals in reality that essentially have thermal "vision." I don't think that means they were specifically designed by evolution to prevent people from sneaking through the wilderness. The lameness of the skuldr soul-sight ability is dependent purely upon their implementation, rather than the mere existence and nature of their sensing ability. If they're forcibly tossed into the scene every time you get to sneak, then yeah. It would be no different from putting wolves everywhere there was a sneaking opportunity, so you couldn't get past their amazing scent-detection (even though wolves don't have any remotely inherently "lame," ficticious abilities).

One thing that I'm remound of is something I mentioned in another thread: A "step where I step" option/formation/move mode for your party, so that they can follow the stealthiest person and actually not step in traps and on loud floor materials, etc. I think maybe even a bonus to sneaking for the whole party, while in that admittedly slow movement mode, would be in order.

You were correct. I did not quite catch what you were throwing, 8P. But I do now, and that absolutely makes sense. Also, though, I was kinda focused on the whole resting-equals-ability-replenishment thing because that's what Obsidian seems to be rolling with right now. Of course, that could always be changed, . I do think you'd run into some problems with the whole "You actually don't get your abilities replenished for 24 hours" thing, BUT, they are not problems I'm against attempting to tackle. Yeah, sorry. I believe you possibly mistook me there. I was sort of just commenting on the issue in general, rather than meaning to suggest you, personally, were who I was arguing against. Again, actually a pretty awesome idea.

You failed to provide an explanation of what "well-crafted" means. Who's to say it can't have epic, philosophically moral dilemmas and still be well-crafted? u_u

^ The AC on that armor's gotta be over 9,000.

Normally... Also, I don't follow. Perhaps I was not very clear? If every time you partake in combat, someone gives you a free chocolate cake, and every time you partake in crafting an item someone punches you in the face, I think people would hate crafting, not because of what it inherently is, but because of the non-inherent specifics of its implementation. Whereas, even if combat was terrible, they'd statistically like free chocolate cakes more than getting punched in the face. I think we can't really say "crafting is just boring" until someone makes a crafting SYSTEM that isn't boring. Imagine if in combat, your party members's mana pools and health pools and such were listed as materials, and you had certain recipes that required certain combinations of each resource. Then, you just clicked a button, waited 3 seconds, and a message on the screen said "Successfully created Slain Enemy." Of course, that's not what happens. You use resources, and produce combat ability uses/effects, which then determine whether or not you take damage, or something dies, etc., but it's all much more complex. AND it's all visually represented, real-time (with pause, heh). But then, with crafting, it's basically a logistical inventory interface, much like buying and selling at a merchant in the game, only far more convoluted. It's like the concept of a game system, then they just threw it in in text-based mode, while the rest of the game is fully realized, and people go "Hmm... the entire idea of utilizing a process to achieve a desired result must just be lame or something," and wonder why crafting isn't very fun.

It'd be nice, maybe, to have a few different height options within a given race's height range. I dunno if we really need a slider, though. Of course, I don't really know that a slider wouldn't be easier to implement than simply a handful of individual pre-scaled options for the model. *shrug* Also, I think it would be interesting if stuff like that were tied to trait-type things that actually affected how people perceived you. You know, kinda like Fallout traits, and Arcanum Backgrounds. "You're just plain huger than anyone else of your race. Your height range is raised by a foot. You gain +1 STR, and people are naturally intimidated by your stature, granting a +1 to all Strength-based checks. However, you lose 1 DEX and suffer a -1 penalty on all Dexterity-based checks." Something like that, for a simplistic example. To clarify, I think having people react differently to whatever height you happened to pick on a height slider (or stockiness slider, or muscliness slider) would be overboard. It seems like it'd be REALLY out-of-hand if not managed by something like a trait (that can function as an actual switch). Basically, your regular, aesthetic customizations to your character would be purely cosmetic and for your own enjoyment but actual changeable options (just like Race or traits) could flip switches that cause reactivity amongst NPCs in the game. And with physique options, the range you get to choose from by default could simply be the cosmetic range, then you'd have to use traits to get beyond that (just like being 7 feet tall instead of 6 could be tied to a trait, so could being extraordinarily muscley -- beyond what you can achieve with the default slider -- or ridiculously lithe, etc.). *shrug*. Just an idea.

*Gasp*... What if you could get a completely different dialogue initiation by sneaking up to one of these characters and actively initiating combat yourself? Imagine there's an ambush (or just some people who are ready and willing to take you down). So, you've got the typical thing the OP described. They see you, and immediately begin telling you whatever it is they wish to tell you before ultimately attacking you (if it even comes to that). The point is that they have the potential to attack you, unless you talk them out of it or something. So, what if you Rogue your way up to the main talky character (who was, in a typical game, going to teleport you in front of himself and talk to you for a bit before ordering his men to attack), but, as an alternative to simply knifing him in the back, you could put a knife to his throat and initiate dialogue that way?! "Tell your men to disarm themselves, and we can do this peacefully." BOOM, that guy now knows you COULD'VE killed him, but chose not to. That alters his entire vision of you from before that happened! If you need that to not be possible (for story reasons) in certain dialogue/encounter situations, then you script in a Mage adviser acting as a magical security camera (you can't sneak past him), or something of that nature, and you could still put in ONE different dialogue initiation -- something like "Did you REALLY think I didn't plan for attempts at subterfuge?" -- which handles the whole thing nicely.

I vote for a directional story. There are a variety of routes to take and still end up in the north. 8P

Oh please tell me you're also looking at dynamic cloth dresses (and robes) and dynamic hair. I've been dying for a good RPG with some nice dresses and hairstyles. Don't forget dynamic lightning whips, u_u...

You're right. And they're ruining the game as an experience with all these updates, breaking down the mechanics and such! Oh wait... I think it's been mentioned about 73 times, MINIMUM, now, that they don't have to provide a build of the game that spoils the story. They can, for example, put in a chest containing lots of different basic weapon types, then have a bunch of goblins, marked as having different armor types. Then, let you go nuts and fight them to test the mechanics and find any bugs in them. They could also have various locked things for you to try out. Maybe some kind of rapid leveling system so that you can test various things at various levels, etc. Maybe some simple dialogues and dummy quests to make sure the reactivity and such works. Hell, they don't even really have to change the functionality of the quests from actual in-game ones. You just skip all the story stuff in-between. Maybe write some dummy dialogue, like I said. No one's going to know that that NPC you talked to is actually going to be in the game, with a similar quest that you actually have to complete all the steps of instead of simply doing little parts of, then automatically advancing to the next parts. Also, things like a "go kill this thing" quest could be easily tweaked from another actual in-game quest without being the same quest in the same setting/story.