locomotron

I do, actually. I think that was a good feature in BG - particularly with how the game wouldn't let you access the inventory while paused, so you really needed to think about where all your ammo was in advance. I was very disappointed that every other IE game paused the in-game action when the inventory was open. Hopefully, you'll let us at least control whether the game pauses while accessing inventory. Agreed, it should always be an option. I also hope P:E Won't feature those horrid exclamation marks above quest givers, and if it does, I hope there's an option to turn it off.

I read somewhere that it was confirmed that there won't be multi or dual classes.

It could be me, but I don't think it was common practice to award XP on the spot during DnD sessions, usually exp was awarded after the session, and then exp was calculated per encounter, not "per monster", meaning you could get exp for avoiding or talking down an encounter. Could be me, but that's how I've always played it, and I found that satisfactory, and that's also how I'd like to see it in PE; you get experience per encounter, not per monster, I'd even be fine to receive it after quest completion, as long as it does reflect the challenge the quest presented.

Damn you for mentioning that concept, because now I can't look at a good pantheon now without that being included. OT though; I'd love to see a rich and varied pantheon(or collection of gods, as I've just read that pantheons are supposed to be families, I guess that could be through some bigger "creator god"), with some gods interacting with mortals and other gods, while others are simply a force of nature, or the result of a common prayer.

That's a big bummer, care to link to the quote where they mention it, or can you explain their reasoning behind it? multi/dual classing was one of my favorite thing of the IE games/PNP rpgs.

I think the biggest flaw in the design was that it assumed that a player didn't hate imoen's guts, first thing I did in Baldur's Gate was have imoen be torn apart by the Ogrens on your way to Naskhel, or better yet, the gibberlings on your way to Friendly arms inn. I did however like the part where Irenicus stole "something" from you in spellhold, that I think was a good motivator for going after him after having freed imoen. I also agree that quest density was one of the better parts of BG2, aside from obvious journal issues it brought forth.

Any reason why? is it the turn based element that turned you off, or the fact that it is(from what I've gathered) a pure dungeoncrawler? I'm leaning towards MoTB now, as ever since playing Throne of Baal with Ascension and SCSII I grew quite fond of epic level campaigns, only issue I have with it is the engine(not a big fan of the NWN2 engine, aurora I believe it is?), there's just something about having hundreds of spells at your disposal that just feels quite awesome.

I am currently working my way through Icewind Dale, and after a bit of a bad start(I didn't care for the first two dungeons at all, and combat felt tedious), I am starting to like the game, and understand why it was hailed as such a great game. My question is what would be a logical next step after I finish IWD? I am currently torn between Icewind Dale 2, ToEE or Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer. I'm not sure if I can handle such an action oriented game after I finish the first Icewind Dale, so I might consider playing NWN2:MoB, or properly playing PS:T, as I haven't finished that one yet. Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Personally I'd like it to have more in common with Baldur's Gate and PS:T than IWD. I much prefer a game with a big city that feels alive, with high quest density, IWD felt like an empty, shallow world.

Yeah Syrim is a horrible RPG... and the game itself is just mediocre. But at least you are rewarded for combat in Skyrim, which will make it superior to PE in that respect. A horrible RPG will have a mechanic that is superior to the one found in PE. hehe. Funny how that works. It depends on how the experience system will end up working out, but I do agree that not learning anything(getting experience) from combat is a tad strange, I'd much prefer a hybrid between objective based exp and encounter exp(getting experience per encounter, wether you bypassed it or fought your way through it.). Thanks for the quick response! Currently in the second proper dungeon, and it might be that my party setup is less than optimal, I have 3 frontline fighters, and 3 casters, I'm not a big fan of ranged characters so all the ranged that I do have are the casters and their slings. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm having a hard time enjoying myself with almost every encounter being more guys than I have myself, and them hitting more accurately and harder than my frontline fighters(Paladin, Fighter 3/cleric, Multiclass thief). I'm not looking forward to having to replay everything up to the point I am now.

Co-op would be great but I think it has been confirmed that it won't be in.

A false sense of urgency while you spend weeks, months or even years on sidequests and other things. This might be moot as BG2 did this quite well with the first chapters being about gathering money to do dirty dealings with the shadow thieves, DAO also did solve this by having you recruit allies.

Yeah, Josh Sawyer said in a nice way that he hates Baldur's Gate 2. But he loves Skyrim! (just check his twitter feed, lol) So maybe he should apply for a job @ Bethesda instead of trying to make a spiritual successor to a game that he hates. For real? skyrim might be a decent game, but I thought it was an absymal RPG, with little to no C&C and most importantly; no consequences to character choices; you can be guildmaster of every guild at the same time, rival or not. And you can excel in every field of skill. I doubt PE will be like skyrim, but I fail to see the merrits of that game as a proper CRPG.

Care to elaborate why you think the combat in IWD is superior to that of BG2? currently giving IWD another shot as I hadn't finished it before and I find the combat quite tedious and frustrating, with enemies swarming you at every turn. Could be because my last playthrough of BG2 was with the SCSII mod, increasing difficulty a fair bit without feeling unfair.

The game is also a spiritual successor to commandos (a game that Sawyer loves), so it was necessary. No combat xp. Reading that link was depressing and disappointing. By far and away the best games of those mentioned in the Kickstarter video were BG 1, 2, and PST. Those are the games mentioned that got me to back PE. While some of the other games mentioned were pretty good (I never played ToEE or Arcanum), I'd not have backed PE if it was only inspired by them. BG1&2 and PST were oodles better in so many ways than the IWD series in my opinion. No combat XP is a bad idea.... is there really not going to be combat XP? I haven't read where they said that was the case yet. Though I'm pretty sure the things the OP is upset about aren't actually going to be in the game (or are they?.. .if so that's bad, one especially being bethesda style level scaling). Had I known Sawyer's opinion of Baldur's Gate and that he'd be lead designer of PE I honestly likely would not have backed PE. I've never agreed with him on his opinions of 2nd edition vs. 3rd (while there were some improvements in 3rd, overall I think 2nd (or even 1st) edition is a far better game than 3rd edition AD&D), and think IWD2 probably would have been a better game had they stuck to 2nd edition... I'm not going to say I regret it yet, but my excitement for PE has just diminished a great deal. The upside is that we still may have a great story.... Hopefully the OP's concerns don't really amount to much. Name dropping Baldur's Gate in the PE Kickstarter vid and having it lead designed by a guy who doesn't like those games was a bit misleading on Obsidian's part. I hope I'm misunderstanding something here.... I do think that is quite disheartening to read indeed, as they specifically mentioned the Baldur's Gate series in the kickstarter, and have been referencing to it quite a bit. I doubt many people know his stance on BG, and how this might affect the finished product, it might turn sour as backing avid fans of BG find out the game is nothing like it.(semi-freeroaming world, tons of quests in a high fantasy world) I was under the impression it was a spiritual successor to games such as BG, IWD, ToEE and PS:T. I am not a big fan of IWD, as I felt the world was empty compared to BG and a very shallow dungeon crawler. I may have to adjust my hype-o-meter. All of this might be moot as they might still draw lots of inspiration from the BG series' strengths, but I'm not too glad about reading that. I do trust Obsidian to make a high quality CRPG worthy to stand amongst the great titles of the 90s, though, so I will still definitely play it, but I guess my expectations were slightly warped by hearing/reading the words Baldur's Gate in the kickstarter video/post. I don't agree with OP's complaints, as they seem like a kneejerk reaction to some newer game mechanics being introduced.

A way to turn off buff icons on portraits while still seeing them on the character screen, if buffs are used a lot.

While I do agree that getting the majority of XP from combat is strange, but the issue with objective based XP is that you don't gain experience for completing 90% of the dungeon, while you might need that experience to be able to complete the remaining 10%. I think a balance between combat encounter XP and objective XP would be best(XP for defeating/avoiding encounters and XP for quests/tasks completed), but I understand the decision. Care to link to the post where the decision is made?

Since there will be no good/evil meter, it would be quite interesting to see a balance being struck between one side of the spectrum; alternating between a better reward, or more/less effort. For instance you could blackmail a questgiver into giving you a better reward, possibly resulting in him sending a few thugs to take revenge. A good-aligned solution could be that you decline the reward, resulting in a higher reputation gain. It would even be nice to see some evil quests net more rewards with less effort, as I don't think preventing powergaming should take a front seat; roleplaying should be paramount when dealing with quests. something that is a bit of a dilemma is that solutions shouldn't be allowed to be abused; taking the good route for the reputation, then afterwards killing or stealing from the questgiver, giving you the best of both worlds without any of the downsides, although this is debatable.

In no particular order: Minsc - Loved his strange banter and odd combat exclamations Jan - Long winded anecdotes about turnips, whats NOT to love? Mordin - He sang gilbert and sulivan, enough to win me over, was truly heartbroken to see what happened to him in the end. HK 47 - I'm a sucker for characters with odd mannerisms and lots of arrogance. Keldorn - A great example of a lawful good character done right; reliable, duty-bound, and reasonable. Honorable mentions: Garrus Khalid Kreia Wrex

this sounds like a very good idea, allowing for less definitive solutions to unfortunate combat encounters. Of course it shouldn't get in the way of other parts of the game, but I think that goes for anything they would implement. It would be quite amazing to be able to subdue certain enemies, allowing you to simply knock out the drunken lout that tries to kick your teeth in, rather than gibbing them outright. interregation and such seems a bit far fetched, or un-feasible, but it could be done in certain quest-related situations to allow for yet another solution to the problem, while staying true to the format; a combat driven CRPG.