TSBasilisk

Don't let the use of a title be the deciding factor, eh? I actually like the concept of pursuing these themes in different RPG settings; the use of "Torment" merely reflects that they are linked by that central theme, rather than by series. It's similar to the Bioshock shift; the theme there is it takes place in what was built to be a utopia, only for its inhabitants to twist it into something terrifying by trying to make an ideal real, If they can produce a good game(Wasteland 2 is a trying ground to see if they can), they face two dangers: 1.) Hype builds up expectations and fans will be displeased no matter what. If Wasteland 2 is fantastic, that just makes it worse. 2.) Trying to invoke PST creates a backlash among fans who don't want to see it tarnished with a poor imitator. That greatly weakens the fanbase.

Viacom owns the South Park IP and issued the licensing rights to the game. THQ is the publisher, with permission to publish and distribute the game produced. The exact details of their relationship and how Obsidian ties in are part of a confidential contract. On the bright side, a game this near completion is a good investment and should avoid falling into the bankruptcy limbo. With most of the work done, whoever gets it will pay relatively little for immediate publishing rights.

*insert rehash of joke mixing various RPG titles - if it's still being done, it MUST still be funny!* Seriously though, the first thought I had was the name given to you as a result of your experience: Watcher. Unfortunately, that's very close to Witcher, which would probably kick up all sorts of annoyance. "The Watch" is a possibility, but it's hard to say. On the other hand, if Obsidian does manage to build this into an on-going series, Watcher would have a place as a subtitle. I'm thinking along the lines of Guild Wars, where each "campaign" was differentiated by the subtitle referencing the main story. It's a good way to set several titles in the same universe while separating the unique stories. So, if the main title for the series was, say "Chronicles of Dyrwood", the first installment would be "Chronicles of Dyrwood: Watcher".

A fully dynamic system would be difficult to implement in-game, and would probably be a major cash-hog for a game that's not focused solely on trading. That doesn't mean there can't be some variations to use, but they'd likely be a bit more static. One of the games I remember best for trading was Wing Commander: Privateer. Goods were valued based on what each planet produced and lacked, and thus what it would value more. You could buy ore from a mining planet to sell at a factory for finished goods you could sell at a pleasure planet for... items you could then sell to the mining planet. Applying that to PE, set a price index on all goods. Then each town applies a different multiplier to goods depending on the general supply and demand in the area. Then each merchant may have one or two multipliers based on their own personal needs. This gives every town and merchant a different set of prices which the player can learn to utilize. The devs could also set trigger flags on certain goods or multipliers based on conditions that could result from player actions, like burning down a major orchard increases the value of apples across the region but an influx of iron from a mine you reclaimed drives ore prices down in the nearby towns. I'm also not against the player being able to somehow "break" the economy to make money so long as it's reasonable. For example, the player buys up all the apples he can before burning down the orchard, and so is able to make a major profit. That's evil and despicable, but also the sort of thing you'd expect to see from a cunning and amoral trader.

I would hope not. Locking the player out of at least one faction on a playthrough helps to increase the benefit of replayability, so long as the two are distinct and fully-developed experiences. I also hope that this functions a bit more like actual "reputation" rather than a "we love you" bar. Having a reputation means people know of you, what you've done, and how you did it. Reputation can be good or bad. The devs mentioned at one point they want the player to become known for their choices, such as diplomacy vs strong-arming, so I hope reputation is about people knowing about that. --- As for the multiple reputations, I can see how four overall reputations might effect different NPCs. First: General player reputation - all NPCs have heard about you due to certain actions, wherever you may be. Second: Nation-specific reputation - The more derring-you-do in a specific nation, the more the people of that nation in particular recognize you. Third: Class-specific reputation - A hero of the peasants will be more warmly received at a tavern than at a court function. Fourth: Faction-specific reputation - The shortest grapevine, if you help out a specific faction, the members will know about it sooner rather than later.

1.) I like puzzles/riddles that encourage me to learn more about the game world. For example: King's Quest VI had a pictograph puzzle used for its copyright protection. Said protection was hidden in a lore booklet describing the islands and giving more life to the cartoonishly diverse setting. 2.) I like logic puzzles that are obviously installed by in-game forces to act as a defense rather than obviously designed by designers to slow down our progress. For example: I have a general disliking of the "ooh, physics" puzzles from Half-Life 2 but enjoy the portal puzzles of Portal. 3.) I like puzzles that are impossible without cheating around them and have such a way implemented in-game. For example: Beyond Atlantis has a puzzle requiring you to receive three specific stamps in a specific order to receive an item. Anything but the correct order will be flat-out rejected, no clue given, and there are dozens of combinations. The only practical way to solve the puzzle is by rescuing an NPC who gives you the answer in thanks. 4.) I like puzzles that reward in-game exploration and/or use of non-combat skills. For example: Might and Magic 2 featured a Guardian Spirit who would grant you a stat boost if you could track him down on the first day of the year and tell him his name. His location was explained in a message in a dungeon, but his name could only be learned by using a Language skill to read runes.

If you want to involve the RPG elements into a multiple-choice system, how about this: A riddle is posed to your character, and you have a choice of rolling an Int check on it or consulting your party. Each party member offers their own answer to the riddle, giving you five options and the option to roll the Int check if none look good. Each party member would have a chance based on their Int and class to guess correctly. Chanters would have the best answer for riddles relating to old legends; priests for riddles on the myriad of gods; rogues for more devious logic puzzles; and so on. With the right party composition, it would be entirely possible to have all wrong answers, forcing you to rely on your Int roll. This would of course lead to no-win situations, so like in other threads I'd say don't make this a complete Pass-Fail test. Give the player a different experience as a result, like a new type of active mobs or traps to contend with.

And you can always add a penalty for this, even if you escape. Bandits wouldn't just tie you up, they'd take your valuables; you might be able to recover your armor and weapons, but your gold will be a lot harder to get back. You'd need to beat all the bandits in the camp to reclaim your gold, plus their other treasure, and they would kill you this time rather than tying you up again. This also marries very well with the use of a Stamnia/Health system. Your party can be rendered unconscious, but not immediately killed. It adds another dimension to story-telling and a bit of realism. Not everything is a rabid creature that only wants to kill you right away after all.

Something that might be a bit too much would be having the response dependent on the overall battle. Going back to the ogres: Fighting six ogres, you kill two or less before you're defeated. The remaining ogres put you in their pot, and you have a last-minute chance to escape. However, if you kill four or five, the remaining ogres are sufficiently angered to pound you into a paste. --- Bandits I can see three options, depending on how many you killed. From fewest killed to most: -You wake up stripped of all your gold, weapons, and other valuable items. The items and gold are then added to a nearby bandit stash, so you have a chance to eventually reclaim them. -You wake up in a bandit camp. You managed to get them angry enough they plan to kill you, but want to drag it out. You have a chance to escape, though you leave your possessions behind this time. -You managed to scare/anger the survivors enough that they flat out kill you.