Ffordesoon

I would assume you can mix and match "real" companions and Adventurer's Hall ones.

EDIT: Same post again. Hit the Post button twice. Sorry. Admins may delete this post if they like.

Oh, God, yes. Absolutely. I'm flashing back to Alpha Protocol's weird overwrite-y save list thing and cringing. Let me create as many saves as I want and put them in as many profiles as I want and name the saves whatever I want and blah. So many RPGs get that wrong, and of the minor things an RPG can get wrong, that's one of the most annoying. Because it's the first place you go when you load the game up, you know? The solution to the problem Hassat mentioned is pretty simple, actually. Just have a screen in between the title screen and the Load Game screen where you pick which character's saves you want to load. Yeah, it's an extra click, but I'd argue that making the save system crystal-clear to the end user is worth that extra click. And hey, maybe they could put a system in there where you can tell it to "auto-login" to a certain set of save files, similar to the way profiles on an Xbox 360 or PS3 work. Like, you could designate a "favorite" character and have the save browser skip straight to that character's saves. If you want it to do that for another character, go back to the character screen and move the "favorite" thingy to another character's set of saves. Or not. That's maybe overthinking it a little. But the list of save profiles, at least, is crucial.

Given the money and time it takes to create companions that aren't simply pack mules with a few stock lines, and given how many people playing this game would want those sorts of companions, I have no doubt Obsidian will go for quality rather than quantity. That said, the Adventurer's Hall is a good compromise for people who don't want to use the ready-made companions. With that, you can create whatever companions you'd like, and Obsidian doesn't have to spread its resources thin making extra companions with less reactivity built into them. I agree that it would be neat to have like thirty companions with the same depth as the eight (or whatever the number is) we will get, but that requires far more money and time than Obsidian has.

This is how I feel. All I want is for my completed playthroughs to be acknowledged by the game. It doesn't have to be anything major. Hell, even a little "CLEAR DATA" tag attached to my save file would be enough.

@Eschaton: But you're making the assumption that the person who came up with that system of magic didn't create inbuilt safeguards against "magical engineering," as you put it. But that doesn't have to be the case. In fact, the problem of systematized magic is an easy one to solve. If you don't want "magical engineers" to systematize magic, make the source of the magic something that's inherently difficult or impossible to systematize. When magic is tied to a person's soul, for instance, it's an inherently decentralized system. Any notable magical feats that individual could perform might be the product of years of rigorous training most people would never go through, whether out of fear or laziness. Peasants might have picked up a minor spell or two over the years, but they would still have to practice before they could execute it at all reliably. You could maybe harvest that magical energy using some sort of engine that runs on souls, but that would presumably have hugely negative consequences for the owners of the souls - death, perhaps, or zombification. Which, you know, would kind of defeat the purpose of industrialization. You can't make people's life easier when they're dead. There - one solution to the problem you propose. I can think of at least one other without much effort, and I'm sure I could think of plenty more if I wanted to.

Oh my God, if the game turned into a Monty Python-style parody of itself in the New Game +, I would be all over that. It would be an absolutely pointless feature for anything beyond pure entertainment value, and I would not care less. "Help! I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!"

"Yes." "Well that wasn't very nice, was it?" "I, uh, I guess not." "D'you go around stabbing every random berk you meet?" "...I should really get going."

If it has interesting, responsive character interactions that are entirely platonic, I'm not sure how you've lost anything. Romantic relationships are part of the human story; I think artificially including or excluding them is a mistake - like making a painting without the color blue for no clear reason beyond not liking the color blue. That said its entirely possible to create a story that is still well done without romantic relationships, just like its possible to make a painting without the color blue. The difference is between understanding how to use your tools and having a solid plan or just being arbitrary. THANK YOU. EDIT: @Ulquiorra: If a boy is in love with a grill, he's a very odd boy indeed. (I know, I know. But I had to. )

Nothing good for the game is a waste of resources. Is NG+ good for Project Eternity? I don't know. Maybe. I personally like it when it's included, and I think the objection to metagaming among cRPG fans is fundamentally idiotic. But, you know, that's me.

So it's chi, then. What's the problem with treating it like that? Some people cook, other people specialize in cooking to such a great degree that we call them chefs. One doesn't invalidate the other. And yes, I know it's technically Gōngfu, but the films are most commonly referred to as "kung fu movies" in English. That's why I used the term I did.

All classes should be separate (that is, they should play and roleplay as differently as possible) but equal (that is, no class should offer a demonstrably inferior or superior experience to any or all other classes, and all of them should be able to get to the end of the game, albeit with difficulties particular to them). I should be just as happy I chose to be a Cipher as I would have been had I chosen to be a Warrior, but part of that is that I should have a very different experience as a Cipher than I would have had as a Warrior. That's how classes in a cRPG should be balanced.

It would, but it would still inspire LESS wonder than if no one could do it. Either way, magic (for me) should be "magical". Otherwise it isn't really magic. The frequency and itensity can shape a different atmosphere of course, but I personally feel that overly high-magic worlds loose something. Well, that's your preference, and you're entitled to have one. For me personally, I kind of don't care. I mean, I do, but only if the implementation of magic in a given setting is wrong for the atmosphere the author (or whatever you call them) wants to create. I wouldn't want Lord Of The Rings to play out in exactly the same way if every mook could shoot lightning out of his fingertips, because giving everyone that ability and having them never use it would break the story. By contrast, I wouldn't want a version of Harry Potter where only Dumbledore and Voldemort could do spells, for the same reason. But I don't prefer a specific presentation of magic in and of itself. The way I look at it is, if you can sell me on it, I'm yours.

@motorizer: But as I said, that's a problem with execution, not the idea. if everyone (or most people; enough that it's commonplace) can do a bit of magic, but only five people can do crazy magic like flying, surely flying would still inspire wonder?

Why does magic need to have "mystique," though? Why does it need to be special? Note that I'm not arguing against either of those portrayals of magic, but rather the idea that those are the only "valid" ways to portray magic. That's certainly the easiest way to make it interesting, but it feels kind of arbitrary to say that's the only way. And does it even need to be "interesting" from a lore perspective? I understand that the classic high fantasy wizard is a wizened old fellow who has spent his life studying the proper applications of "the magicks," and there's no inherent problem with that archetype. Wizards in D&D match it to a tee, and I absolutely get the argument for carrying that aspect of D&D over into PE. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be carried over. I'm speaking about fantasy games in general right now, not necessarily PE. With that said (and you should take it as read from this point on), I think a world in which magic is commonplace and acknowledged as such could easily be just as interesting as a world in which it's rare, and that the "magical" feeling its rarity gives you could be replicated in other ways. Look at, say, kung fu movies. Everyone in a kung fu movie is usually able to do some small amount of kung fu, but kung fu masters are as rare as wizards, and their superhuman displays of skill are appropriately astonishing. The mooks who can do some basic punches and kicks are so ubiquitous, and so easily trounced by the hero (who is often a journeyman of local renown, not a true master), that we are instinctively unimpressed by them even if they do stuff that would be impressive in another type of story. And we are likewise only somewhat impressed by the journeyman hero's kung fu when he or she goes up against a master. (Yeah, I know, CTHD isn't technically a kung fu picture, and Li Mu Bai isn't technically a master, but it serves well enough as an example.) Now apply that to a fantasy universe. Pretty much everyone can do a cantrip or two, and there are some moderately accomplished spellslingers, but the best of the best are on a whole other level, and inspire the awe reserved for any caster in a fantasy world with "rare" magic. Ergo, some people are special, some people aren't. Same as usual. There is, of course, the argument that magic as a whole would become less "special" in such a universe, and I agree with that argument. I also don't think it's particularly important for magic as an abstract concept to be special unless that's the world-sense a storyteller is trying to evoke. The important thing is not to get into A Wizard Did It territory, where magic can simply fix everything. But when that stuff happens, it's a flaw in the world-building of a specific storyteller rather than an inherent flaw of magic as a concept. So there is no confusion, I will reiterate that I'm not saying commonplace magic must be the order of things in PE's world. My point is simply that there is no inherent problem with commonplace magic unless you just hate it when magic isn't "special." Which, you know, I get, because I too have pet peeves, but any pet peeves you have are kind of your problem. I loathe Will Smith to an irrational degree, but I can still admit he's talented, and I can watch and enjoy his movies. And even if I couldn't, I wouldn't say a movie is garbage just because Will Smith is in it. I just wouldn't watch the thing.

I'm pretty sure the point was to figure out there wasn't one. Isn't that the point of all your discussions with TrashMan?

This is one of those questions that always makes me go, "Is this really a problem?" There's this inherent assumption that, by not having wizards react to swords like vampires touching crosses, ALL CLASS BALANCE FOREVER is DUMBED DOWN FOR THE FILTHY CASUALS. Is that really true? I don't cook for a living, and I'm no expert at it but I can pick up a knife and use it to, like, cut a tomato in half. You don't suck at everything else just because you're not an expert at it. You're just, you know, not an expert at it.

That made a lot of sense, in addition to being excellently written. Kudos!

Minecraft is a sandbox first, and a game second. Terraria is a game first, and a sandbox second. Neither is, in my estimation, an RPG, though both have RPG elements and could concievably be roleplayed, and Terraria is closer than Minecraft to it. It's hard to articulate the difference between those games and RPGs, but I think the key to discerning said difference is that there is no larger context to your actions in Minecraft or Terraria than what's happening on the screen at any given moment. Even the most basic dungeon crawler has a bit of flavor text to contextualize your actions. There is usually no GM in a computer RPG, but the GM is at the core of all computer RPGs, if you see what I mean. Which you may not. I'm not sure I do, to be honest. But I think there's something there.

My knee almost jerked. Good thing I read your post before that happened. This is a good idea.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. They're making - or attempting to make - a game that is in the mold of the Infinity Engine games (Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Icewind Dale 1 & 2, Planescape: Torment), but without many of the annoying legacy issues those games had. They're not using straight-up D&D mechanics, because those don't ultimately translate all that well into computer games and also licensing fees, but they are using D&D's mechanics as an inspiration. That doesn't mean they're going to make an AD&D-2E-by-any-other-name copy of D&D. Depending on your point of view, which I cannot really discern from your short post, you'll be either happy or sad to note that a few D&D diehards have already made quite a stink on this board about how ripped-off they feel because of how far the mechanics seem - seem, mind you! - to stray from D&D mechanics. As to how the moment-to-moment gameplay will work, definitive answers have been thin on the ground, mainly because all of that is still being, you know, defined. But the details we have learned have been viewed by most as very encouraging. Does that answer your question?

@TrashMan: No, because currency is not in any way, shape, or form an area of my expertise. I was pretty sure someone would be annoyed at my use of the term "currency," but there it is. *shrugs* As for your point about cents, you do understand that this is little more than petty whinging on my part, right? I even said it's entirely psychological. I don't care that much either way, but I like having one number. Dunno why, I just do. Except when I don't.

@Mcmanusaur: I didn't say The Sims was the perfect Simulationist RPG. My point was that it could be considered an example of a true "Simulationist RPG," at least provisionally. If I were to look at it as a Simulationist RPG, I would call it heavily flawed, if for no other reason than the fact that it is impossible to play as a truly despicable character. Sure, you can play as a heavily sanitized version of a vampire or a burglar, but there is an ethical boundary implicit in the choice of actions presented to the player. There are mods which give the player some more power in that regard, but there's not, for example, a human trafficking mod. Which is fine, as it is ultimately intended as a family-friendly simulation of everyday life rather than as an RPG. Its RPGness is accidental. My real point (which I failed to elucidate in my previous post, due to being in a tired haze) was that a true Simulationist RPG of the sort you describe would do well to take as many lessons from The Sims as from Fallout or the IE titles. As for your worry about the lack of a definite setting, I can see your point, but Sims 3 in particular actually does a pretty good job with that. Its accidental-RPG status prcludes the sort of solid world-building you see in, say, Torment, but there are plenty of defined locations peopled with all manner of randomly generated Sims. You can go to the library and hit on the movie star who lives three doors down from you, then go back to her place, for example, or go to a house party and mingle. Neither of which indicates the setting is particularly believable, I admit, but again, accidental RPG. You might also find Space Rangers 2 worth a play, while I'm recommending things. Its generic name is a turnoff, and the graphics are kind of meh, but it is an inspired piece of Russian lunacy that defies genre classification. There is a real-time strategy game in there, and a space sim, and a text adventure, and an RPG, and a turn-based strategy game, and a third-person shooter, and and and. I believe them what made King's Bounty did Space Rangers first, and SR is by far the more ambitious game (SR2 is actually a remake of the first one, so it's not necessary to play the first, um, first). Kind of broken, but really interesting nonetheless. Ultma VII, Divine Divinity, and the upcoming Divinity: Original Sin also carry the Simulationist torch to an extent, as does Darklands. You probably know about all of those already, but I feel I should mention them anyway. Oh, and Fable II had some intriguing - if half-formed - Simulationist elements. They all do the hero's-journey bit to some extent, and Fable II is basically nothing but ego-stroking, but they're interesting games to study. Unrest also popped up on my radar just today, and it strikes me as intensely fascinating, if not necessarily your particular cup of tea. Certainly, the heavy focus on non-combat mechanics and the player characters who are simply a part of the setting rather than being Epic Hroes Of Destiny sounds like it might scratch an itch or two of yours. It scratches the hell out of mine.

@Mcmanusaur: Ah. Fair enough. Your "four elements of RPG design" are intriguing. Have you heard of Ron Edwards' GNS Theory? I don't take it as gospel or anything, but I think it's interesting to look at that in the context of computer RPGs, because you could plot out pretty definitively where any developer of cRPGs would sit on that spectrum. It's also useful for identifying one's own preferences. I would say you lean pretty heavily towards Simulationism as your One True Way (not an insult, just an observation), whereas I sit roughly at the halfway point between Narrativism and Gamism, but can enjoy all three types of games more or less equally. Micamo was being sarcastic when she (he?) said The Sims was the "purest RPG ever," but I think there's actual merit to that claim. I know it sounds odd, but I would say there's a strong argument for The Sims being a pure Simulationist (obviously) RPG. You have stats, levels, character progression, a "stronghold" of sorts, quests, stat-enhancing gear, choice and consequence, a highly reactive system, plenty of mechanics conducive to roleplaying, a number of protagonists that can be as low as one... Hell, it's even isometric! The reason it sounds silly to say that The Sims is an RPG is partly because of its wholesome and nonviolent nature, partly because it simulates everyday life, partly because you don't have control of your Sim at all times, and partly because there simply aren't many real Simulationist RPGs out there. We tend to think of the Elder Scrolls series as fulfilling that role, but I'd say that series is really somewhere in between Simulationism and Gamism. But you play as a single character or small set of characters, and you direct them through an emergent narrative as they level up their skills. Sounds like an RPG to me.

Rocks Fell And Everyone Died.