Crowseye

Nah. Your characters running everywhere is perfectly in line with the team's (and PoE fans') design philosophy that the IE games were basically just a big waste of time in between dialogues and set piece battles.

One person's "dumbing down" is another person's "streamlining" or "expunging features that were a needless hassle/busywork" POE's relationship with the IE games is not the same as Oblivion or Skyrim have with Morrowind, but there are going to be players that find plenty of things in PoE they feel are needlessly "dumbed down" and "MMO-ified" compared to the games that supposedly inspired it. Just because you happen to think it makes the game better and therefore is nothing to make a big deal about obviously doesn't mean that everyone will. It's not "journal systems" in general that are being condemned here, it's the specific way they're designed in many modern games. Skyrim's does away with the written details and instead, relies on quest markers. I most definitely see this as both "dumbing down" and plain old developer laziness. By contrast, Older RPGs (not just Morrowind) tended to treat their journal systems as a labor of love. Details and creativity went into them, and therefore, there was no real NEED for stuff like quest markers. If you needed to jog your memory you could read your journal and get the who, where, why and what of the quest. Baldurs Gate 2 is a terrific example of how to correctly design a journal system. This is one of the bigger tragedies that have befallen cRPGs IMO. Writing informative and engaging NPC dialogue and quest text that wrapped the essentials in story and lore is an art that has sadly greatly diminished because so many games rely on graphical quest markers and quest trackers.

=============================================== Planescape: Torment and Shadow of Revan spoilers: =============================================== SoR's ending is actually a rip off of the much better Planescape:Torment's; even the merging sequence and some lines of post-fight dialogue are plainly "inspired" by that game. BioWare's writers primarily flopped the roles of the "Transcendent" Revan and his Broken One physical counterpart, making the latter the one that wanted to avoid his fate. Planescape:Torment (one possible ending) THE TRANSCENDENT ONE: "Yes. I am that which was split from you by the hag's power." THE TRANSCENDENT ONE: "The moment I was split from your cancerous shell, I knew life. I knew freedom. I shall not surrender it to you." NAMELESSS ONE: "We were not meant to be separated. And the Planes have suffered because of our separation." REVAN REBORN: "I cast you out! It was the only way to go on -- to remain and finish what we started. You were holding me back!" TRANSCENDENT REVAN: "You think you're stronger this way, but you're not. Neither of us is. We're broken. We can't go on like this." ... NAMELESS ONE: "Re-unite with me. We will become one again, as we were meant to be." THE TRANSCENDENT ONE: "You know not what you do. If we are re-united then it shall be an ending. There shall be no future for us. We shall go on to future torments." TRANSCENDENT REVAN: "You're too weak. You won't last." REVAN REBORN: "I.... if we unite, what I am -- won't it fade? Become diminished...?" ... DAK'KON "Your voice... have you at last come to know yourself?" MERGED NAMELESS ONE: "Yes. It was a ... difficult thing, and it cost many lifetimes. Many suffered so that I might know myself again." SITH INQUISITOR: "You have found your center." MERGED REVAN: "I have. For the first time in a long time."

I support the capability to split the party on a given primary map. It gives the player numerous additional role-playing options without requiring any writing or quest design on the developers' part. The player's rogue can head out into the night while the party is "resting" at the inn and steal from the locals (and might be forced to confront them himself if he gets caught). Characters can be set to stand guard when an NPC is being confronted by the rest of the party. A paladin in the party can make a heroic sacrifice to hold off the attackers while the rest of the party escapes (this can be a fitting way to dump a character from the party "in story"). And so on. This type of player-driven gameplay is completely in the spirit of the role-playing experience and should be permitted here IMO. I do those types of things when playing the IE games, so I don't consider the suggestion one of those "It sounds cool, but players don't really play like that" things, which do come up often in game design.

I found the party AI in the Infinity Engine games to be horrible and I always turned it off before doing anything else in the game. I used pause whenever I needed to assign commands. I think that setup does best at providing the feeling that you are actually controlling an entire party. That said, I'm also a fan of customizable AI like FFXII's gambits and what DA:O tried, even if there's still a long way to go before it finds its role. Even being able to customize things like priority (attack, but don't break CC unless I make you!) and pursuit range for auto-attack, and warnings like "Help! Get this thing off me!" (perhaps with a pause option on a character by character basis) would be things I'd like to see find their way into more games.

As somebody who typically makes several personal customizations to my games, being able to spawn items and creatures, move to different areas, and alter stats through the console for test purposes adds a considerable amount of value to a game for me, and I'd guess anybody else interested in modding. As far as cheating for a genuine playthrough? I would never auto-kill a creature or buff my stats or experience, but I'm not playing against other players here, so I don't care one way or another whether somebody else chooses to do it.

I'll have to remember that: Obsidian and its fans advocate attacking the person for his or her opinion rather than the opinion itself. Thanks!

I'm a supporter of any weapon/device in fantasy as long as it is consistent with the history and atmosphere of the setting. That said, show me on a timeline of Earth where knights went on great quests to slay trolls and orcs, wizards were shooting fireballs out of their fingertips, and evil political figures turned out to be demons in disguise. Fantasy worlds absolutely in no way whatsoever have to mirror Earth's history, no matter what similarities they may share. Not having firearms (or any other feature) is every bit as legitimate as having them in a fantasy setting. So while I'm optimistic firearms in PoE will work well, I can also sympathize with the OP. If you've been waiting for a decade for an epic, isometric RPG and it has/lacks some unwanted/wanted elements, it can be disappointing. I'm excited for PoE, but there are some decisions in other areas that really disappoint me too. The notion that Obsidian and its fans are entitled to freedom from others' disappointment regarding design choices is silly IMO.

I guess I'll be the jerk here. Certainly there are reasons for a developer to restrict saving based on the experience it hopes to create for the player (see platformers, sports games, etc.). But, in this case, I believe the topic is really about the perception that somebody else's use of save scumming cheapens one's own experience. One has to wrap it up in a discussion about "challenge" and "immersion" because otherwise it would come across as psychotic: it indicates that one measures one's self-worth relative to the accomplishments of others and the prestige earned by those accomplishments within the player community. In other words, one doesn't want others to be able to feel the same sense of accomplishment or get the same recognition while playing under an easier "rule set" than oneself. I don't say that to support some idiotic "See! Gamers are losers!" ideology. I spend more hours gaming than anything but sleeping and working, and I play most of my games more "hardcore" than most. I say it because imposing strict rules to satisfy the ego of a certain subset of players is an unproductive approach to single-player RPGs and should never be a consideration in the design of such games.

In order to maintain a certain logical relationship between the price and quality of store-bought items at the beginning and end of the game, one of two things has to happen: either rewards for helping powerful individuals or for performing involved and difficult tasks -- something I think we all like to see a lot of in our RPGs -- have to be scaled back OR overall loot quality needs to stay very flat for the entire game, so that supposedly exceptional rewards like a magic sword are truly exceptional regardless of what point in the game they are obtained and are worth holding onto. Gamers are rarely happy with either approach. In this thread we have people unhappy about getting a "crappy" couple of gold and a magic sword +2 from a noble as a reward for, let's say, ridding his lands of the powerful evil wizard, when they do far better than that just in loot while completing the task. Elsewhere we've had people complain about spending 90% of the game looting a bunch of junk whose only use is to vendor for a few insignificant coin. I've come across plenty of people who complain that after racing to get the longsword +2 Varscona in BG, they then have nothing to look forward to for their longsword-wielding main character for the rest of the game. You can also just not worry about the player having astronomical amounts of money. Many games take that approach, and in games with linear world design this works because with item power and shop prices rising to astronomical values along the way, the player is still always facing a budget constraint. Now it's the yeoman quest givers and merchants that become completely unrealistic, with Iron Will the blacksmith selling the Greatsword +6 "Edge of Eternity" for 1,000,000 gold or NPCs paying you with enough gold to have bought a large kingdom ... but the reward and gear progression mechanic at least still feel satisfying. If the world is open, however, and players can and will travel to areas of the game they previously explored and are tuned for earlier play, this can cause certain significant issues. Now I can sell an extra Dagger +4 I have laying around and buy every scroll, potion, and magic arrow in lowly Little Hamlet without thinking twice about it. You can have an inflation mechanic, but it's "end game" is the same as the above, with NPC behavior becoming completely unrealistic. Having a dagger that went for 5 copper at one point in the game going for 5 gold later on is IMO as immersion-breaking as a lord offering a reward worse than the leader of the bandit camp was carrying on his person. I don't think there's a right answer. There may be a right answer for the particular goals a designer wants to achieve, but all approaches have a place somewhere. In single-player games my personal preference is usually for relatively flat loot quality. I think a generic orc in Chapter MAX should usually be carrying the same axe as an orc in Chapter 1. I make 2g looting coin and vendoring a bunch of generic items obtained clearing a map regardless of my level, then receive an appropriate 5g reward and the unique Greathelm +2 "Falcon Crest" from the lord who sent me there. Regardless of where I am in the game world, my 7g buys me goods of arguably comparable value, and regardless of when I obtain it, one of my characters will probably be wearing Falcon Crest when the final boss gets downed. Of course, I also prefer a much flatter power progression than has become standard in RPGs. I don't need to finish the game as a god who can whirlwind through an entire city and come out with nary a scratch, but I think most players have come to expect that in their RPGs.

This is a question whose answer obviously comes down to personal preference. For me, the single biggest factor that determines whether I will see a game to the end and replay it afterwards (or continue logging in if it's a persistent-world game) is the connection I feel with my character(s). I have, at times, tried to figure out what exactly makes me feel that connection, and I've thus far only been able to determine that the reasons are quite nebulous. I have played games that gave me a predefined character and had a lot of fun with them, and also enjoyed a game like Icewind Dale where I defined my own characters within a particular ruleset. I have loved story-rich games and also spent weeks of my life playing games without any real consideration for the story at all. The constant is that I have spent time theory-crafting and implementing character builds and gear setups and/or writing short narratives that detail the character's history, personality, and talents. They are MY character and I feel a sense of ownership. Sometimes it just comes down to luck. A game that doesn't offer the options for character building and/or internal storytelling that I'm looking for won't hold me regardless of how well the rest of it is made. I think Dragon Age: Origins is an amazing achievement as far as individual interactions between characters, but I just never felt like I was able to build my characters or choose story paths the way I wanted. Comparatively, KotOR is a lot less refined, but I've played through that game from start to finish over a dozen times, because even though the Revan character is defined by the game's story, I feel like the I'm able to play different variations of the character (in personality and skillset) in a way that sufficiently reflects the ways I can imagine him. Does the game provide me with the tools in terms of character development and story to realize the vision I have for my characters? Perhaps that's the best way to summarize it.

I think to do a multi-planar game properly one has to do more than make it just another place to look at with different types of creatures inhabiting it. Pen-and-paper Planescape achieves this by giving the planes their own physical/environmental rules, but my sense is that the overwhelming majority of players absolutely detest games that throw them curveballs that limit or penalize them over any substantial period of time (How dare you make me trade the 1337 helm I worked so hard to get for a lousy Helm of Fire Resistance!)

Illusions, enchantments, curses, transmutation, commanding nature, commanding spirits and the undead ... all have been done (DnD includes all of them). I think the issue is really that, as developers have branched out to create their own IPs, a heavy emphasis has been placed on metaphysics and a setting's internal logic. It is much easier to maintain internal logic and consistency with elemental magic, because players grasp that magic users are playing with the "stuff" that physically makes up the setting. By contrast, what are illusions, curses, or transmutations? I think we all grasp what they do, but how do they work in mechanical terms that are consistent with the rules laid out by the setting? I can say that an elementalist draws or concentrates power from the elements that make up the universe, or opens a pathway to some elemental realm ... but what is the process by which one influences a mind or places a curse on someone? It's not impossible to come up with logic and rules to fit alternative types of magic, but it takes a certain amount of effort and creativity that either isn't plentiful in the industry or doesn't offer the type of benefits developers are looking for for the effort involved.

I like statistical tracking (kills, kills of X type, deaths, healing done, and so on). It's non-essential but fun and interesting information that some players enjoy using to determine party and gearing strategies. While it probably needs to be implemented from a much earlier stage in a project's development to achieve its potential, I like Lephys' idea of making tracked stats and accomplishments relevant to a game in some way. Reputations (as in specific titles, not a faction-based disliked-neutral-liked-loved scale) for certain major kills or milestones could prompt characters in the game respond in a certain way. Having a character known as The Orcslayer, for example, for delivering the KB to a thousand orcs, could result in changes in dialogue in an encounter with an orc chieftain if that character is in the party. Perhaps a town that has been particularly plagued by orcs might react to The Orcslayer being in their town differently than they would otherwise. And so on. In fact, it can add replayability as players metagame to achieve certain reputations to see how the game changes. Not something for Eternity perhaps, but the concept has it's place in the RPG genre IMO. I'm guessing there are probably games out there than do implement something like this ... I just haven't played them.

What lore reason is there for a Cleric being unable to wield an axe? Honestly, I don't even remember it from the games I've played. All I remember is that in BG and other games, pure clerics couldn't use swords, axes etc.something with it being against their Ethos. I imagine Oblivion could write whatever they wish, the point was just that as long as it fits in "their lore", then I'm ok with it. gotcha. it just seemed like an odd example with the rest of what you said. There are post-Medieval writings that have been interpreted as suggesting that since the spilling of blood was considered in some way impure, the clergy, when they were asked to kill, used methods of combat (maces, staves) and execution (hanging, burning) that did not involve the intentional spilling of blood. Early role-playing games (specifically D&D) ran with the idea and through imitation it's become a fairly widespread stereotype. In any case, with respect to the topic, somebody mentioned 3/3.5e. I'll also throw in Morrowind as an example of a game that uses a system where one's class dictates one's area of specialization, favored attributes, and major and minor skills that affect proficiency and/or progression, yet it's possible for other classes to make use of skills unrelated to their class's strengths if one so chooses. Although I would argue Morrowind ultimately undermines many of the class differences, there's no reason why some of the same concepts can't be applied to a more rigid class system. so they shouldn't use an axe based on their beliefs. That seems more like a roleplaying/moral decision. There is no good reason that a cleric shouldn't have the skill to carry an axe. Let him be ostracized by other clerics and priests. Then let him kill those other clerics and priests with his axe if he so chooses. I wasn't offering a suggestion about if/why clerics should have their weapon selection limited in PE, simply providing a reason for why many RPGs already had such prohibitions incorporated into their lore ... so as to reaffirm that Utukka didn't just imagine it or pull the idea out of thin air. There is actual precedent for it as a gaming convention.

What lore reason is there for a Cleric being unable to wield an axe? Honestly, I don't even remember it from the games I've played. All I remember is that in BG and other games, pure clerics couldn't use swords, axes etc.something with it being against their Ethos. I imagine Oblivion could write whatever they wish, the point was just that as long as it fits in "their lore", then I'm ok with it. gotcha. it just seemed like an odd example with the rest of what you said. There are post-Medieval writings that have been interpreted as suggesting that since the spilling of blood was considered in some way impure, the clergy, when they were asked to kill, used methods of combat (maces, staves) and execution (hanging, burning) that did not involve the intentional spilling of blood. Early role-playing games (specifically D&D) ran with the idea and through imitation it's become a fairly widespread stereotype. In any case, with respect to the topic, somebody mentioned 3/3.5e. I'll also throw in Morrowind as an example of a game that uses a system where one's class dictates one's area of specialization, favored attributes, and major and minor skills that affect proficiency and/or progression, yet it's possible for other classes to make use of skills unrelated to their class's strengths if one so chooses. Although I would argue Morrowind ultimately undermines many of the class differences, there's no reason why some of the same concepts can't be applied to a more rigid class system.

I actually think it's unfortunate that major developers of cRPGs have ditched pretty much any effort to represent gear and inventory management with any type of realism. But then, I'm from the old school where one's supply of rations can limit how long the party can spend in the wilderness as well. I also like the idea of being able to acquire a pack animal as a feature of the party camp that funcitons as a sort of mobile "bank," alas. In any case, if an inventory system doesn't have anything to offer from a strategic or tactical standpoint, then arbitrary item limits (see Dragon Age: Origins, most MMOs) are exercises in tedium and time consumption IMO. If there's no meaningful difference between decisions about what to carry in one's inventory and when, then inventory should just be infinite (like the KotORs) or you're really just artificially padding the gameplay time under the pretense of trying to represent carrying capacity. Well-made encumberance systems offer meaningful tradeoffs between gear worn and gear carried that affect things like combat and add a layer of functional realism (encumbered characters are less effective at performing tasks). Tetris systems, when used effectively, also force the player to make meaningful decisions about what to carry (see Deus Ex). Even where they create a situation where repeated loot hauls are necessary, encumberance and tetris systems can add consequences to other facets of the game that an arbitrary item limit alone does not (unless it were exceedingly small).

I'm a big believer in 'rest' and 'sleep' in my RPGs. I believe they lend authenticity to the role-playing experience. They can also add a strategic layer to combat and decision making: when the ability to restore HP and use abilities that require exertion is finite (between recovery periods), the player has to make decisions that transcend any given encounter and therefore become part of the exploration process. The ability to rest or sleep (and the player's judgement on whether it is safe to do so) will affect the player's decision to use certain abilities and items, to push on or go back and so on in a way that is fundamentally different when stats and abilities are effectively reset between every encounter. When looking at examples of rest and sleep functionality in other games, I think it's important to differentiate between concept and implementation. Baldur's Gate is a good example of this. Conceptually, rest/sleep in BG is used to restore HP and ability uses. In terms of implementation, BG is based on an 8-hour rest/memorization and recovery cycle suggested in D&D material. As has been pointed out in earlier posts, this creates stupid scenarios where the party simply rests for 6 days straight (in a matter of seconds) to fully recover. However, the 8-hour figure is completley aribtrary, as is the HP gain per hour of rest. Another game could implement the same mechanic and fully restore the party in 6 hours instead of 6 days, for example, just by tweaking the numbers. In other words, just because BG's implementation created an absurd scenario doesn't mean the concept of resting/sleeping to restore HP and ability uses is entirely broken. As an aside, D&D 4e uses the "encounter" as a unit of gameplay and has abilities that function once-per-encounter, the idea essentially being that they require sufficient energy/concentration that in the midst of a fight they can only be used once, but once the character "catches his breath" between encounters he's ready to use them again. It also offers once-per-day abilities that require longer periods of rest. In any case, the important thing to me is that the decision to rest or sleep be as meaningful as possible without necessarily making it too complex for the player to make a reasoned decision from the information provided. In addition to recovering health and replenishing the use of tasks that require heavy exertion, other bonuses for being rested help make the decision more meaningful. Penalties to resting in uncomfortable or dangerous locations (specifically being attacked while resting) do the same, but from the opposite angle. At the very least, any sleep system should include these kinds of bonuses and risks IMO. I also like the idea of differentiating "resting" or even "catching some shuteye" from "setting up camp," with the latter providing a period to interact with party mates and perhaps organize inventory/supplies. Rest can be differentiated from sleep by limiting the number of rest periods between sleep, or more realistically by having rest periods offering diminishing benefits until they are reset by a period of sleep. Likewise, depending on the quality and length of sleep, trying to sleep again immediately after waking could see decreased benefits as well. The implementation would obviously depend on how HP and abilites function in normal gameplay.