Zenning

That's because we thought of this one: I was wrong it looks like. Its been way too long since I played either it looks like.

The line was actually one of the lines for the voices on Baulders Gate 2. I'm suprised no one got it. But, I can also see why it can be considered annoying. Personally though, I actully enjoy em, and don't really get annoyed with em, especially if they're done as easter eggs, or one off things.

If anybody remembers that quote, then hopefully you're hoping that Project Etenrity will have a fairly good amount of voices to choose from, with a large varity of quips like... "Can I get you a Ladder, so you can GET OFF MY BACK!" What do you guys think?

Insurmountable waist high fences are the most goddamn annoying things ever... Heres hoping we can avoid it for ever...

I don't mean what class, but what personality. Are you gonna be the do gooder with chronic hero syndrome, or more of a face stabbing, murder basatrd, or anywhere inbetween. Personally, I'm going for a nice, but stupid and charasmatic bard, who's trying to do right by everyone, but is way too stupid for anybodies good, and sure as hell shouldn't be in the position of power he's currently in.

Or until you and the skeleton have a badass sword duel into the pits of hell, and you kick it into a pit of lava! Err, sorry, played too much Prince of Persia as a kid.

That's not really the case. There might be more choice, as far as the devs changing the dialogue along the way and maybe writing up more options for dialogue, but I don't think you can prove that it will necessarily mean more depth. Part of what makes a line of dialogue memorable or "deep" for me is hearing the power with which it's delivered.One of my all time favourite video game lines of dialogue was the "would you kindly" speech from bio-shock (sort of a spoiler if you haven't played it) that dialogue really stuck in my mind because of the way it was delivered. If it was just a line of dialogue I probably would have just skipped through it without a second glance. Whatever happened to imagination? It died with our childhood. But seriously though. Voices make games more engaging for me at least. And for me, what makes a game, or story deep, isn't the amount that it can vary, but by what its trying to say, and what happens when I look deeper into the game. Alpha Protocol, and VTM:B were both very deep games, that were both a bit on the short side (for an RP), and had a lot of cut content. However, other than a few cases (like Sis in AP, and Beckett), its shortness did not influence the richness, and depth of the story telling and writing. Personally, even though Planescape was very well written, it really felt like a chore running through it sometimes, simply because so little of it was voiced. It never felt that way with VTM:B or AP for me, and I really do believe that the voices had a lot to do with it.

I'd love a chanter spell along those lines. Sort of like the Chanter telling a joke so hilarious, that everybody who hears it dies. Like, whats the difference between a duck. Or hell, maybe like one of the preform masterpieces from Pathfinder, like Stoneface (It's a story about a bard trying to make a woman smile for the first time, so he tells a joke about a flying carpet, a king, a ox-cart, and a space hamster. At the end of the story, the woman smiles, and the spell effect "Stone to Flesh" is made on everyone who hears it (Even if they're really stoned), or literally miming stone walls into existance.

Are you serious? No really? Are you serious? Did you not pay attention to what Sawyer and the rest of the people were saying? I mean, its like you heard "We're gonna balance things so nobody can just dismiss any class or skill", and somehow got "We're gonna make every character identical". Not to mention, being fine with anything does not mean you'll get to experience everything. Sure, you can beat the game with 6 warriors, but it will be a completely goddamn different experience than playing with a regular balanced party. Nowhere in anything did he even imply that somehow imply that you no longer want a balanced party. Nowhere. There it is again. Look, being able to solve every encounter with any party layout, does not mean that every party needs to be able to finish it identically. Hell, outside the main quest, it doesn't even mean that specific party layouts can solve it. Not to mention, are you seriously claiming to understand the classes and systems Obsidian is putting in place for clerics and other spell casters? How the hell do you suddenly know what these clerics are gonna be like now that healing is no longer just straight give more people hp. Next, you once again are somehow thinking that not being necssary is now equal to being useless. It's just the idea that yes, I can have my warrior run through those traps, and be severly weakend for the next fight, or I could have my theif go and disable em. Or hell, maybe I'll have my mage summon monsters to "disarm" em, or better yet, I'll mind control my enemies with my Chanter, and make the enemies run straight into their own traps. See, I was able to come up with situations that would be completely different and viable, without relying on any single class. I have never, EVER, heard of a game like this that gave you class specific quests. Ever. It has not been done. Period. And hell, you're the roleplayer right? If your reason for ass kicking i to heal every person you see, or lighten the pockets of every merchant you come across, you can still do that. Once again, I really don't get where the hell you're making these assumptions from. Its like you're assuming the developers are all idiots, who can't tell the difference between balanced, and everything being identical. Also, how exactly does allowing for a more diverse style of play close doors? Sure, now they won't suddenly know exactly what the player is capable of in each encounter, but that just means that they will have to allow for even more freedom in how to solve these encounters, not less (Unless they're terrible developers). 4E sold well, and has a sizeable fanbase. Its about as popular as Pathfinder, and it is fun, if for different reasons. I don't want PE to be 4E, and I don't want it to be pathfinder, I want it to be PE. And right now, we don't know much about how mechanically these classes will function, and how they will vary. But we do know that Obsidian is pretty damn good at these kinds of games, so at the very least we can give them the benifit of the doubt until they start telling us exactly how the game actually plays, instead of just assuming that what ever design their going for already sucks.

Yes! That is balance! The only difference between a waeapon or peice of armor should not be the amount of damage they do, or the amount of AC they give. I'm just wondering how their gonna be able to implement it in a isometric combat type game like this. I mean, Darksouls had all those ideas you mentioned, but thats because the weapons were put in realistically, and you controlled every little bit of motion, and every attack you made, were you had to judge the distance, range, and timing for everything. We can't really implement that in an isometric game without adding in triggers like "-3 to hit in confined quarters" or "+2 AC against Humonoids".

Wow, reading through the RPG Codex forums, I didn't realize just how bad some of this hate is. I mean, one guy just goes on and on about how everything that J.E Sawyer touches sucks, or is good despite his influence. That doesn't even make sense! As for the balance issue, I remember in Alpha Protocol I'd play the game a number of times with completely different skill points, and I'd always think "Hell yeah, I'm so glad I picked these skills" for everything I ended up doing. At no point did I ever think "What the hell is the point of (x) skill anyway?" I didn't need any of those particular skills to get passed through the game, but every single one of em felt important as I used em. Hell, the coolest part is that I'd never think going through the game a second or third time "Why didn't I get y skill this time? BLARGH!". It was great. If Obsidian can manage to give me that magic again, I'll be more than happy. Err, execpt get rid of those stupid bossfights that require a certain character layout to not be annoying as goddamn hell.

I really don't get your reasoning Sacred_Path. You're arbitrarily ignoring the more unbelievable aspects of other classes, but focusing completely on these things for the monk. Hell, its been mentioned a number of times that do have a different playstyle from other character archtypes. Usually one thats more about never getting hit, and being very maneuverable (Seriously, in pathfinder, with lunge, combat reflexes, and wind stance, good luck ever hitting a Monk). But to you, somehow that doesn't make sense. Because for some reason a barbarian being able to be stabbed with a hundred arrows, and a chanter being able to empower his friends with his words is somehow reasonable. I mean hell, in the setting, it makes more sense that your soul should be useable to empower ones self more than someone else, and yet being able to punch through steel is just so much more unreasonable than being able to literally disintegrate dragons. Like Umberlin said, we don't know much about the game, but we do know that the developer Obsidian has a very good track record when it comes to painting a coherent and believable story. And I think its okay to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to creating their very own story, instead of arbitrarily picking out certain factors and claiming their somehow more impossible, or doesn't fit the setting that we know absolutely jack**** about.

That required a massive amount of save scumming, and what was pretty much me abusing specific gameplay mechanics (Like bottlenecks at doors, and the fact that Mind control only affects one warrior at a time). It was not really a viable method, viable in this case meaning something that can succeed in under a non-trivial amount of time, and with little meta-gaming. I still don't understand why that would be boring. If my rogue handles a situation in a completely different way than my Cipher, or my warrior, and I am able to complete the segment with any of them, than I'd think that'd be fun. I should not have to need exactly one rogue, one cleric, and one cipher in order to beat every part of the game. Instead, I should be able to use my party composed of what ever classes I feel are the most fun, or most useful, and successfully beat any segment of the game. Maybe not as easily in some segments than if I had that particular class that is most suited for those situations, but still able in a trivial number of tries.

I don't get how having a number of unique ways to get through an encounter depending on your party layout would lead to a boring game? Switch out Sarevok with Aneomen, and you've described my first group through the game... It was painful, but fun!

The questioner is so certain, and so certain based on . . . what? I share Sawyer's disbelief in the above quote. More and more people that think they know more about the game the Developers are making, than the Developers themselves, despite having next to no information on the game made public yet. Looking back at that question, you're completely right. Why would someone automatically assume that freedom will lead to poorly balanced game? I mean look at Alpha Protocol. You could go completely nuts in how you developed your character, wear any equipment you could afford, and go through any encounter (Except some boss jerks) in however you'd Like. Its the exact same thing with Dishonored, Dark Souls, and Dues ex again, and none of those games were unbalanced. Once again, sure this total freedom type of gameplay hasn't really been implemented in a straight up Tactical RPG (Although its been experimented with in a number of JRPG's, although I have a bad feeling that bad things will happen if I bring them up, or admit to playing them), that doesn't mean it won't work.