Faerunner

It's far too early to tell, but odds are I'm going to play a neutral or chaotic good type. Someone who looks out for others, but doesn't care much for rules or regulations. (The specifics beyond this require knowledge of the character's home, upbringing, environment, and racial, cultural, and socio/economic background.)

Um... DA only had two romances per gender. In DA:O you had Alistair and Zevran for women (good boy and bad boy, respectively), and Morrigan and Leliana for men (bad girl and good girl, respectively). Of those two per gender, Zev and Leli were bisexual so there would be a same-sex romance option for each gender. Similarly, DA2 had Anders and Fenris for women (er... they're both bad boys, but one's a hopeless romantic and the other an emotional cripple), and Isabela and Merrill for men (bad girl and good girl again). Though DA2 made all romantic options bisexual, so they aren't exactly gender-specific. The only third romance I can think of is the inclusion of Queen Anora for human noble men in DA:O, and Sebastian for women in DA2. Admittedly, they aren't deeply developed, but then the player doesn't meet Anora until the very end and it's more of a political marriage anyway (i.e. a means for the throne), and Sebastian is a DLC character that wasn't that well developed anyway. I worry about having only one romance-able character per gender though. One character's personality might not appeal to a wide variety of PC personalities, which would leave out a lot of people who love romance but don't care for the only option they got. Also, would this one romanceable character per gender be bisexual? There's a lot of players who would love the option to romance a character of the same gender (for whatever reason; maybe they're LBGT, their character is, they feel this character would be compatible with this character, etc.) and it just seems a shame to limit them to one male romance for women and one female romance for men. Not terribly exciting. So an easy solution would be to focus on developing strong characters, then only include romances for characters they think players would like. No offense, but this statement seems to contradict some of your earlier statements. You claim to dislike romances, yet you advocate them being a major part of the storyline? You seem to claim that romances tend to be too shallow, and yet you advocate only one romancable character per gender; I imagine one male romance for women and a female romance for men? No matter how well-written a character is, they simply aren't going to appeal to everyone, or even arguably the majority of the audience. If they're well-written enough to have preferences of their own (no bribing with gifts or anything like that), then to romance them you would need to conform your character to fit their expectations (basically choosing all the dialogue options that they would like) even if it's OOC, or go without any romance. Not to mention the hetero-normative implications of one character per gender. I agree that well-written and well-characterized romances are important, though I don't think having only one per gender is necessarily the right solution. Personally, I'm always okay with two or so romance options per gender so players will be more likely to find a character they get along with. In fact, funny how you mentioned NWN2 earlier, because there were originally going to be two romances per gender before they had to get cut for time. Elanee and Neeshka for men, and Casavir and Bishop for women. Essentially, a dutiful/good-aligned and a chaotic/evil-friendly romance for both men and women. I think it would have worked out much better, as opposed to just one standard romance for one alignment/personality type. Also, though they get a lot of flak for it, I rather like BioWare's method of including at least one same-sex romance for both genders in the DA franchise. While I'm not advocating LBGT romancable companions just for the sake of it, since it would fall into the to the "designing a character just to be romanced" problem, I think odds are that one or two might happen to have differing preferences is believable. I actually read somewhere that Gann from NWN2: MotB was supposed to be bisexual (just because it was how the writers envisioned his character), but executive meddling changed him to be completely straight. If the writers happen to create characters that they see as having certain preferences, I think they should go for it. I'm not a fan of this trope, personally. I don't think that perfectly engaging characters should be wantonly killed just to give their love interest more motivation to fight; especially not female characters for male leads. (Not for nothing Gail Simone found plenty of fodder for her "Women in Refrigerators" list, which she created after noticing a disproportionate amount of superheroines being brutalized in comics just to further the character arcs of male superheroes close to them). I think love interests should be allowed to contribute to the story by being alive, active, engaging, contributing their thoughts, expertise, experience, support, and letting the player share their goals, character arcs, and so on. What does killing them accomplish? A bit of angst for the player and that's it. Angst and motivation can be obtained in other ways besides killing love interests like they're disposable, and I hope the developers at Project Eternity look for ways to do that.

I actually rather like how party control was handled in NWN2. There's enough AI that the player doesn't have to control the companions in combat if they don't want, but they can still control which spells, moves, tactics, etc. they wanted. With leveling up, you could build your companion's stats, abilities, feats, etc. just the way you wanted, or you could just click a "Recommend" button if you didn't want to be bothered. (Admittedly, you couldn't pick a new class for your companion.) Everyone has their own opinion, which is why I think giving players different options would be the best way to go. Put in some passable AI and Recommend buttons for those who don't want to worry too much about it, but also have the option to better and even completely control the party's every action (at least in combat) and level progression for those who do want to micro-manage. Just my thoughts though.

Very interesting and very enjoyable to read. While I was reading this, I kept thinking of how the folks at the Penny Arcade: Extra Credits web series often talk about how a game should not be valued solely on its writing, but how well the writing, themes, and characterization are integrated into the game mechanics. For example, how themes present themselves in combat, exploration, aesthetics, quest-completion, character arcs, and so on. While reading this blog, all I could think was how well you follow their advice. ^^ BioWare games are often praised for their writing, especially in their most recent Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises, but to be honest it seems like a lot of their games rely on writing so much that they end up inadvertently creating visual books or clickable movies as opposed to interact-able stories or... playable games. I find your approach so much interesting and engaging, and you are clearly thinking of this from the perspective of a game designer (and an RPG game at that) as opposed to an author or filmmaker. ^^ With that said, there are some passages that concern me. - "The golden rule is the companion should be a support character or a walking/breathing slab of target practice... the companion should serve as a sounding board for the theme of the game." I hope this doesn't mean the characters have weak personalities. No offense, but I don't want to feel like characters spring into existence when my player meets them, exist solely to serve my character's every whim, and then cease to exist as soon as my character stops looking at them. While it's what they are (meta-wise), I don't want them to look or talk that way in-game. I want to feel like they're real people with their own pasts, histories, thoughts, opinions, hopes, dreams, goals, ambitions and futures just like anyone else. While I love the idea of their goals coinciding with the player (why else would they tag along?), and their histories, personalities and/or situations helping to highlight the overall theme (helps from a narrative perspective), I would rather they feel like well-rounded people who tag along because of mutual interest rather than mindless automatons waiting to serve my character's every whim. You've written some great characters in the past, so I trust you to do well with these guys too, but just the same hope you keep this in mind as you write them. - "The companion needs to ego-stroke the player in a variety of ways." I'm sure you get this a lot, but I hope this doesn't mean the companions all blindly agree with the player's every action. I agree that "any companion that simply sits around bitching, complaining, and haranguing the player" is no fun, but at the same time, please don't be afraid to let some companions disagree with or even chew out the player if it fits their character. Again, I'd rather they feel like people with their own thoughts and opinions instead of satellites revolving around my character. Otherwise, I have no real concerns. This sounds like it's going to be an amazing role-playing game, I love the role-playing game designing approach you're taking (again, I think it's really amazing that you seem to be approaching this as a game that players interact with, not just a movie that players keep going by pressing buttons), and I cannot wait to see how this evolves! ^_^

I agree with this so much. It was one of the many problems with the shifter class too. YES! I agree with this so much! Something like this would be so easy and useful for everyone! I think it would definitely help. Just like how adding nature areas and content in games helps improve ranger and druid roleplay value (interacting with animal companions [which was in NWN1 but not NWN2], talking with random animals you come across, getting opportunities to use nature abilities like tracking or recruiting beasts, getting nature-oriented quests, some quests altering if you're a ranger/druid, etc), I think having some quests that let shapeshifters do their stuff would improve roleplay value too. =)

I personally love shapeshifting, though I also don't think it's needed for a druid class. Still, I don't blame people for disliking it because, honestly, I don't think it's been handled too well in most games. In theory, it should be very useful since there are so many different creatures for different needs; turn into a rat to fit in small spaces, a cat to stealth, a hawk to fly, a boar to tank, a spider to inflict poison or web, a large predator to do damage, and that's not even getting into supernaturals. In practice, there are rarely role-play reasons beyond "druids are close to nature" and the game-play is just, as you said, "different forms of fighter." Which is a shame, because I've seen it done well. For role-play, I love how the Shifter Prestigious class was handled in NWN: SotU and HotU. The idea was that the druid was so immersed in the world around them that they no longer defined themselves by their outward appearances, but their soul within, and actually came closer to their true self through all of their transformations. I thought this was very interesting and had amazing roleplay fodder. Unfortunately, the game-play was so buggy and complicated that the player had to do hours of research to know which of the dozens of forms were useful for which situations. Suffice to say, most shifters got frustrated and quit, and the shifter class didn't return for NWN2. =( For game-play, I love how shapeshifting was handled in WOW. The player only got a small handful of shapes, but each had unique abilities for different situations. The bear could tank and fight like a warrior, the big cat could stealth and "backstab" like a rogue, the seal could breath underwater (even though real seals can't do that) so you could complete underwater quests without needing to come up for air, the horse could travel quickly, the big bird could fly, etc. I spent most of WOW playing solo because each form functioned like a different party member (not as well as actual party members, but enough to get by). If shapeshifting is implemented in Project Eternity, I think different shapes should have one or two unique abilities so they aren't all just "different forms of fighter." For example, a large cat can stealth and/or "backstab" like a rogue, a boar can charge and/or knockdown, a bear can deal huge damage and/or berserk like a barbarian, a spider can spit poison and/or webs, a hawk can not only fly but scout ahead (maybe use its keen eyes to detect traps), a wolf can howl to stun enemies like a sonic blast, etc. Maybe give every form two or three clickable abilities like the Mabari War Hound in DA:O ("Howl," "Charge," "Maul," "Overwhelm," etc.) or the shifted forms in WOW to make shifted combat more engaging (so you won't have to passively watch an animal bite and claw at the enemy while your humanoid form could cast spells, use items, swing weapons, etc). Much like how the creators of Project Eternity often ask each other of the story, "What is the central conflict and why should I care?" (and it's a great question to ask), I personally think they should extend a similar question to class abilities and shifted forms (if they include it): "What is does this form do and why should I want it?" If shapeshifting is like NWN2 where we start off with four forms (badger, wolf, boar and bear), but they only melee like fighters and have different levels of STR, DEX and CON, it quickly becomes apparent that the one(s) with the highest strength and defense are the only ones to turn into. "Why would I turn into a badger when the bear is stronger?" I think it would be important to give each form a unique ability that people can find desirable. It's just my personal opinion on it though. Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to disagree, and ignore my opinion if they wish. I just wanted it out there.

I think I would have tolerated and even enjoyed the DA:O party interactions more if there wasn't a GIANT BLINKING NUMERICAL SCOREBOARD. Seriously, those open scoring systems piss me off to no end. Cheap, patronising, assumes up and down the entire spine of the game that the player is a ****ing stupid socially retarded adolescent and illiterate moron. Um... I did not know anyone here felt so strongly about it. I said I liked it "for the most part," but I also acknowledged that it had its problems and could have been handled better in a lot of ways. I'm sorry it makes you so angry though. To be honest though, if you dislike DA:O's numerical scoreboard, you should just see how it's handled in NWN2: MotB. Much as I love that game, any time you gain or lose influence in cutscene conversations, giant yellow letters would literally flash on screen with (what felt like) a "ding" sound. It was very overt and impossible to ignore. For all DA:O's faults, at least the numerical score would be placed in small letters on the bottom left-hand screen after the conversation is over, rather than in big yellow letters on top of the screen during the conversations themselves. To be fair, what you are describing sounds like the approval/disapproval meter, which applies to friendships as well as romances. Admittedly, it could have been handled better in DA:O. In fact, relationship meters (for lack of a better term) have their faults in every game. While I personally feel that a companion disagreeing with how you handle some quests should not necessarily prvent them from warming up to you if you do something they like, I agree that simply bribing them with gifts is a bit silly. (Although, the gift-giving is also entirely optional. If we don't want to bribe their approval back, we don't have to.) When I say I like the romance in DA:O, what I mean is that I mostly like the way it was written. Meeting the companion, getting to know them, talking to them, sharing adventures, having multiple romantic dialogue options in every conversation (depending on your character's personality), tailoring the relationship to suit your character. (Is your character the kind to be serious, joking, lovey-dovey, lusty, coy, aggressive? Are they the kind to say "I love you," or have trouble saying it? Are they the kind to suggest sex first, do they wait for the other to bring it up?) Most importantly, I enjoyed not missing out on game content by not romancing them, for the most part. (As in not being able to complete their character arcs if you don't romance them like in Mass Effect, or being put in a situation where they inevitably come onto you and you have to take a huge approval hit by turning them down.) I also like how DA:O doesn't include only one romantic dialogue option per conversation or one relationship type, even if it's not the sort of thing your character would say or do. For example, DA2 forces your character into one type of relationship with your companions. Often Hawke has to say: "I love you," "Move in with me," "Let's sleep together," etc. or be forced to terminate the relationship, even if your character loves them but would not necessarily want to say or do those things at those particular times. Ultimately, it all comes down to personal taste.

I agree with the above posters in that I think a good route would be romances that are purely optional, rather easily avoidable, and don't take away from the game experience if you decline. As others have said, some games fix it so you can't complete some of your companion's character arcs without romancing them (like Mass Effect, which has some unfortunate implications), some games don't let you avoid entering romances (like NWN2, where I think the long "courtship" and inevitable "I love you"s from Elanee and Casavir from NWN2 occur if you don't have negative influence), and some games put you in a position where you have to accept them or reject them and lose something desirable if you declide (like DA2, where required companion Anders comes onto you soon after you meet him and you have to either enter a romance or start off with unwanted rival points for denying), etc. For the most part, I loved the way romance was handled in Dragon Age: Origins. The romances only triggered from flirty dialogue options by the PC; you usually had the option to let a companion down gently if they flirted; you could complete their character arcs without romancing them; you could be in love without necessarily being physically intimate; you could let them know you cared in different ways thanks to multiple romantic dialogue tailored for different personality types, ("I love you too," "You're not so bad yourself," "We're in this together, remember?" *kiss*), etc. With that said, the DA:O romances do have some problems, like how some "romance" dialogue triggers are so subtle that you don't know you're flirting until they confess their love, or some companions put you on the spot and make you either accept them or reject them fully and you lose a lot of influence if you choose the latter, and so on. But then most romance options have their shortcomings, so it really just depends on what works for the game. =)

I rather like the idea of a sentient weapon, but I would prefer spiritual intelligence that the player can sense, rather than overt intelligent that the player can have full-blown conversations with. I rather like how "intelligent" weapons were handled in Harry Potter, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I love how the wands in Harry Potter would express their opinions that their handlers could sense rather than hear (like being easy to use for desired owners or difficult for unwanted ones). In Tolkien's books, the magic dagger Sting would glow around orcs and goblins, or Bard's family arrow that struck true when fired at a dragon's weak point in the dark, etc. I think a nice way to handle a sentient weapon would be if it showed its intelligence or preference in subtle ways. For example, in cutscenes where the PC is about to use it and is able to "sense" that it wants, kind of like the shards in NWN2. Maybe it can reveal information about itself somewhat psychically, like an ancient sword that was used in a famous battle long ago, and when you hold it near your ear you can "see" or "sense" the scenes in the battle like shadows of a memory. Maybe if can fit in the narrative, like the party gets lost in a cave or corridor on their way to an enemy, and the weapon glows when you stand closer one door or path, so maybe you should go that way. Or if the character is in a a boss fight and gets temporarily blinded in a cutscene (like sludge in the eyes), but the weapon glows and is still able to find its mark (for example, the blade suddenly shoots out and cuts the enemy's throat, or the arrow shoots out and finds it mark.) I like the idea of intelligent weapons, I think they have a lot of potential if done well. =)

I have to agree with many posters here that I would like finishing moves if they really are saved for the last monster in the group, reserved for bosses, prevent the slayer from getting killed mid-stab (this was a problem in DA:O), and/or better streamlined or simplified so they don't stand out too much. Though I love finishing moves from DA:O, I think they can be improved for future games. (Take the good, fix the bad. =) Also, while I can't speak for Skyrim, I noticed that Dragon Age: Origins finishing moves only occur for melee fighters. If you're a mage or an archer, you never get the the slow, dramatic finishing move or the fancy, creative killing animation. If Project Eternity does include finishing moves of some kind (though it's entirely their choice), I would love for them to be available for every class; or at least every basic fighting style. (That last dramatic slash/stab for melee, that final arrow drawn slowly and released dramatically a la Merida from Brave, or that final blast of magical energy raining down by a spellcaster.) I think every class deserves a chance to do something that looks and feels amazing. ^_^

Not to be sentimental, but watching this update made me so happy I almost started to cry. I love classic RPGs that let the players design their own characters to immerse in the world, but this has become so increasingly rare lately. I know that creating a central plot that is wide enough to include different characters from different racial, cultural, socio/economic backgrounds and with different alignments and worldviews is challenging, but I'm so happy that the folks at Project Eternity are willing to give it a try.

I'll most likely play a ranger or a druid first. I usually play nature-oriented characters in most RPGs, especially rangers when trying new games.