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.

My Two cents. First, I think this has more to do with, what I've heard called, competitive imbalance. Its the idea that you don't need to make every type of character good in every situation, but just that the situations, and tactics for any particular style of play are all viable. And I think that's what Sawyers really getting at. Sure there may be an optimal build, and some character combinations and skill choices/class choices might be more viable than any others, but that at no point will one particular skill, or style of play be completely dismissible. As for the idea of too much innovation being too risky. Well, first I think that his design philosophy isn't new. It's a philosophy showing up in a number of games, like Alpha Protocol, Dark Souls, Dues Ex, Dishonored and others I can't think of right now. I haven't really seen it implemented in a old fashioned RPG yet, so I'd love to see how it works. That, and I believe that all these developers understand their craft enough to know whats too much, and whats too far. Finally, yes, P:E is meant to harken back to the old days of IE games, but I think somebody else put it best. "P:E isn't supposed to be making a game from the past today, its about bringing those old games to the present". So I'm looking forward to these new changes.

Ha! I knew that's what you meant! That is still one of my favorite games of all time, and it sucks how many people panned it, and how many more people didn't play it. And I'd have to agree with your general idea that games are not suddenly becoming less in depth, or worth playing. They've changed for sure, and certain genres are becoming less and less common in favor of others, but that's not a bad thing, just change.

To the people who're saying voiced acting = less depth, you need to look at two games. Alpha Protocol, and Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines. Both of these games were fully voiced (With Alpha even coicing the character), and both those games had a massive amount of depth. They were games you had ro play multiple times to really get just what was going on. That seemed simple, but had a dozen other things going on that you'd never see until you probed into it. Hell, Alpha even showed how you can use a dialog wheel to good effect, putting a lot of tension in certain spoken encounters, making weaving through a conversation a treat. Yea, it costs money, but voice acting does not mean less depth in anyway.

Yeah, Khelghar was pretty damn awesome. And hey, he even had a fairly fleshed out character arc, that was kind of a parody of character arcs for his kind of character (Quite a Character he was). Character Also, I'm a bit surprised by how much people on this board don't seem to like him. I mean sure, hes kind of the Holy Grail (Quotes) of RPG geekiness, but I didn't realize he rubbed that many people the wrong way.

Yeah, I can get behind that. I remember one of my Pathfinder characters was a mostly illiterate Orc (Full orc) Bard, who had a bag of tricks adapted for magical musical instruments that would break on a crit. He had some Barbarian levels, so he'd literally pull out a Base Guitar +1 of Rocking (1d12, Slashing), run up to an enemy, and break the guitar over their heads while he told stories of his greatness (His preform skill was oratory). If I could get that much freedom with Chanters in P:E, I'll be more than happy.

Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of how you play DAO. You must always have at least one tank and one healer to not get wiped really fast. There is precious little room for variance, since these fill half your party slots. So, I'd prefer if the devs would stay as far as possible from DA and its kind. Actually, 4 Sorcs wipe the floor with everything. It's safer to have one tank in there too, but really you only need 4 sorcs. The point was though, I managed to get through the game with my character layout, without feeling like I had no choice but to play with a particular build. Sure, if I really look at it, I'll realize that rogues are really completely useless, and Going anything but sword and board for the Warrior would never compare to anytype of Sorcs, but I didn't have that much of the meta-game in my mind at the time, so I'd just experiment until something worked, and feel clever when it did. This really only applied in nightmare difficulty by the way, since the other difficulties were fairly simple.

So far we know that chanters will be sorta like bards. The issue is, bards are a little bit of everything, and really just plain sucked until third edition, and then just mostly sucked until Pathfinder (Where they got their masterpieces, like being able to mime a 10 foot by 10 foot wall in less than a turn). I personally though, despite the massive suckage that they had, loved me my bards. I don't know why, but the idea of singing or dancing my way into combat, and making terrible puns while I bash people upside the head with my Axe (Bass) just really appealed to me, so I plan on Chanting it up for my first character. I'm personally thinking that the Chanters are probably just going to go the way of dedicated passive buffers. Maybe something like Song of Hero's, courage, and skills, but with more versatility. Maybe throw in a Fascinate as well, and you've got your standard Buffer/Mesmer archtype. Where do you guys think they're going to go with the Chanter?

So, I was thinking about what Horm was saying, and I think I get what hes getting at. Feel free to say how wrong I am, but you're trying to say that the developers should go ahead and build their encounters as difficult, or awesome as they see fit, but should properly teach the players how to deal with these encounters. For example, Dragon Age Origins had some pretty damn difficult encounters, that became exponentially easier the more you varied your party (Or err.. Just used Wizards. But we'll ignore that), and used the correct stances, and spells that worked best for that fight. It did not however feel like the Soup can + Moon = Laser sun, simply because they made it fairly obvious what each of those powers did, and slowly exposed the player to these powers so he will always be experimenting with their arsenals. They also made the tool tool tips, and spell descriptions explicitly say what they did in no uncertain terms. This way, even though you're only really fighting the way the Developer intends, it never feels like you're arbitrarily railroaded into a specific tactic, but that that tactic is naturally what you'd need to use for that encounter. If this is what you're saying, I can completely get behind that. Sure, it might not be the freedom that something like Dark Souls provides, but it makes sense for the genre it's in. And hey, if I feel like I came up with the tactic that succeeded myself, I'll still feel very satisfied, even if that was one of the limited tactics that the developer decided would be viable on that enemy.

Or that building your single player game around the top .1 percent of players, is probably not a good idea. Having a mode for that kind of group is all well and good, but making it difficult, or impossible, for majority of players to be able to get passed specific segments without brute forcing, or out right cheating is not. Example. Ever played an adventure game that had that one puzzle that just didn't make any goddamn sense? Like, you think about it, and you try what you think makes sense, and nothing seems to work. Finally you throw up your hands, and just try random **** to see what works, and you realize that the moon needed to be combined with the soup cans to make the sun laser. And you just think "What kind of insane breed of logic is this?" Well, thats not good design. And honestly, since many players don't catch every thing the first time through, some combats which the player doesn't realize how to counter, feel just like that. If you want an example of good difficulty design, it'd be Dark Souls. See, there is no right way to go through an encounter in Dark Souls. There's just a billion wrong ways. It doesn't require you to learn every facet of the game to beat a specific part, just that you hone the parts that you do know. Sure, there are infinitely easier ways to fight the 4 kings, but the fact that I can actually run in, and fight them anyway I want, and win, is how the difficulty should be handled. What I'm trying to say is that the Developer shouldn't build the game around what he considers the most twinked out party there is, but around the fact that every player will have a different approach to the combat. It won't always be easier going one way or an other, but it should always be possible. There should be no sun laser I have to make to get passed any single part.

Just to add to the general thread, check out this video from Extra-Credits on tutorials http://www.penny-arc...e/tutorials-101 It covers a lot of what you just said, which is pretty great. Also, let me just add that the first time going through Baulders gate, I had no idea what the hell I was doing. I cheated the hell out of my self, and I just didn't really like the fights because I'd just get my ass kicked, and just didn't enjoy it at all. But, going back to it almost a decade later in the enhanced edition, after playing Pathfinder, and a few more games for about 4 years, and reading through the manual (Seriously, thats a goddamn novel right there), I've just had so much more fun. I'm just sad that they didn't teach the game like you, and extra credits, have mentioned. I've gotta say that games have gotten a lot better about these kinds of things, adding in tool tips, and secondary tutorials if a player gets stuck. Sometimes it seems like they go too far in the opposite direction, telling us the obvious, and literally telling us to do, but I've never felt as frustrated with these new games as I did when I played Baulders gate way back when.