Kjaamor

I don't necessarily have any issue with the OP's suggestion, although I would suggest that P:E - a party-based tactical rpg - is less able to provide such things than Morrowind - a fantasy walking simulator with rpg elements. I don't think exploration (in the non-linear sense) is necessarily something we should expect a huge amount of from P:E. Looking at its IE forefathers, BGI had by far the most exploration - and while it certainly had its moments most of the revealed places were disappointing for the time put into them. WSs like Morrowind or F3 handle this sort of thing far better by virtue of their gameplay and, to be honest, budget. WSs lend themselves to incidental discovery for the simple reason that the vast majority of their games consist of incidental things. While none of us are after utter linearity, I'm sure most of us are still after a game with enough content that we aren't spending the vast majority of our time mundanely trudging up and down the same old roads. I think I can see Micamo's point regarding timed quests, but the simple fact is that a lot of the quests in Morrowind (and tES generally) are so bloody dull that walking off is a relief from them. I remain hopeful that P:E will not walk that particular line.

Race, class, gender and background reactivity are all really cool ideas, and I'd love to see them be well-implemented in the game. ...but I can't help but be reminded of Vanilla NWN2, which featured a handful of these reactivities at the start (or start of each party member's time with the group), and then never seemed to mention them again. That just seemed weak and I often wondered if it would've been better if they just hadn't bothered. I get the impression from what has been displayed so far and general racial planning that racial reactivity will be feature, and I'm confident it will handle this (and just about everything else) better than NWN2V did.

And you're still failing to understand my point, and still going ahead with your own personal setup that you have a contrary answer to. Also; ...if that is not criticism of a point (albeit one, despite your introduction, that I did not make), then I have missed a meeting. At any rate, since any continuation of this might be suggestive of either a reasonable debate or spam, I'm leaving it there.

The OP suggests that pickpocketing is, if nothing else, conceptually exciting. While I share his view that the implementation is lacklustre, is seems more likely than not that he still finds it interesting or else he wouldn't be power-levelling his thieves so. I was pointing out that I have never found it interesting or conceptually exciting, and that the passion of the OP and others does not necessarily reflect a majority feeling towards the skill. I appreciate that there is a lot of text in this thread to read, Lephys, but it is disappointing to watch someone misunderstand my posts, reconstruct them, and then offer barely disguised criticism for points I am falsely said to have made.

This makes my day ! I don't know why it hasn't been done before, I'm in favor from 100 % xp from quest only ! It was done in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. If you haven't played that, I would heartily recommend that you do. Even though it's an action-rpg (featuring both fps and tpf combat), which I generally have less time for, it is probably one of the greatest rpgs ever made.

For all I personally don't tend to use stealth in isometric games, I can't agree that it is ineffective as a single character skill. The whole backstabbing mechanic, especially combined with fighter skills and/or invisibility, can be very powerful.

I agree that the "majority opinion" is unclear, and without that I'm just talking about personal experience. However, between myself and other offline friends, I've noticed that it is not uncommon for people to roll what effectively boils down to an archer/lockpicker/trap-disarmer class. Personally, I have seldom used stealth with my rogues/thieves, and when railroaded into single-classing have more often used them in mage-killer roles with a bow. Generally, stealth is a better-handled mechanic than pickpocketing, of course, which is frequently a discipline requiring a high degree of time and effort for relatively little reward compared to returning bandit scalps. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with anything posted in support of the OP, and I agree that pickpocketing needs an overhaul - but I feel that full removal should be an option if P:E would otherwise leave this sorry skill (and the wealth mechanics) in their present state.

Just as a gentle reminder on the root matter of the topic, pickpocketing is not necessarily something that all players find 'enticing'. Indeed, when I saw the title for this thread, my first thought was 'Ah, that'll be a topic about getting rid of that pointless skill, I'll go and offer my support for that'. I was very surprised to find out it was going in completely the opposite direction. Frankly, and this could be considered pretty poor form, I've done an awful lot of tldnr in this thread. The only reason I'm here is just to remind devs that while pickpocketing could evidently use a serious overhaul, there's a very good chance many of us would continue to ignore it. In any game where my hand hasn't been forced, I have never put a single point into that skill, and despite the passion of the thread's other contributors I feel I am hardly alone. So that's not so say the ideas within are bad, just that should they prove costly to implement they might not be worth it.

1. Personally, those plot/story penalties are not a bad thing. Its been a small point of frustration for me that I am apparently alone in the fanbase in thinking this. The water chip and the Modoc quest are two of my favourite quests in any rpg because they are timed and it forces me to get my act together (well, not so much the water chip, which I find astonishing when people tell me they failed to beat the timer). b) Even if you don't like those penalties, surely affecting the combat system is a WORSE method of managing such issues. Half of players don't use potions to any meaningful degree anyway, if you are dependent upon them it runs the risk of turning a dungeon into a deathtrap should they expire, and the system as a whole is surely more punishing to enjoyment than quest results changing because you took 2 years to go and get a bandage for someone. iii: Rest spam is already being dealt with by the cooldown system. 4. Potion hoarding is, as it always has been in western rpgs, dealt with by the limited inventory system.

To be fair, while I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, I can't think of too many good RPGs where invisible walls form - which is really the crucial 'option' in the scenario. Perhaps I've got my rose-tinted glasses on.

P:E to be released on the first of April, and turn out to be a jRPG.

<3

Give a slightly sarcastic reply, expect a slightly sarcastic answer. Fair play. In fairness, I've always assumed that regardless of actual level, classes would all be within one level of power of their fellows. As it was in the (personally beloved) BG days. A level 4 mage can still be more powerful than a level 5 fighter, if that is reflected in the class balance and (subsequently) the levelling system. Staggered levelling, when done well, spreads the reward of levelling up whilst only mildly changing the party mechanics and keeping all classes within relevant, but also giving periods where some classes shine - slightly - above others. What I was suggesting, as long as it fits with your hope that all classes can attain the same level of competancy, is that the staggered process adds both more decision-making and more fun.

In terms of Avellone, Loved Fallout 2 Didn't really like Planescape Torment Hated the writing in both IWDs Didn't really like Lionheart Hated all of CoN (but the gameplay broke me first) Thought KotOR 2 was okay for an unfinished product, but (crucially) didn't enjoy it as much as its predecessor Hated the writing in NWN2 Didn't play MotB Loved (in the sense that I was disturbed by) the writing in Fallout: New Vegas General consensus would be that Chris works for me in the Fallout/Wasteland universe, but not so much in fantasy fare. Well, that's depressing. Edit: For the avoidance of doubt, the above opinions refer to games as a whole, and when specified as 'writing' it refers to all writing with the games, not just companions.

Wake up, go on the internet, and see how P:E is coming along.

Here we can agree, and I think know exactly where the other is coming from. Truthfully, it's been great at times in this discussion, but over the last three or four interchanges I've felt the fun drop out of it, and it seemed, even without your last post, that the same was true for you. I find myself equally frustrated with your manner of approach, feeling that you're only prepared to deal with (often irrelevant) logical abstractions to the point of being obtuse regarding the realities of development. I've enjoyed your posts here, enjoyed your posts elsewhere, and will doubtless enjoy your future posts. I don't think we're going to come to a shared conclusion any time soon, I agree that further repetition from either side would be unwelcome, and I too, respectfully draw a line under this. Pro-trolls will quote either of us and disagree at this point.

Could you clarify this point? Since quest XP has been foisted upon us to prevent people from farming the non-respawning mooks, everyone everywhere will receive the same xp rewards regardless of their actions within the party. As an example, why should the fighter advance faster than the mage? Huh? Also, what does quest exp being shared equally have to do with staggered levelling? It's the same as the IE games having kills and quest exp being shared equally.

Inane reasons to justify the gameplay could be offered, but really the gameplay itself should suffice. Edit: If levelling up has become an annoying busywork, then I have missed what sounds like a fairly critical rpg meeting.

I disagree. I think it adds some variation to the reward system. Part of the things I hated about NWN2 was the way all of your characters levelled up at exactly the same time. I always preferred 'Ooh! Xan has levelled up, how does that change the party mechanic?' as opposed to 'Oh, the entire party has levelled up. Guess the mechanics stay the same but we're a bit more tough.' Ymmv, but I would be deeply disappointed if all classes levelled up at the same time.

By the same token, the game should not be full of npcs who engage in savage cruelty for its own amusement, because I would expect those characters to be hunted down rather quickly - as much by other 'evil-doers' as by 'do-gooders' or what authorities there are. But again, from what quotes have been offered on the development, it sounds like this is fairly in hand.

Of course, these are the intentions of one designer, and they were made during or shortly after the Kickstarter campaign. I doubt they stray too far from that, though. And that does answer my question. Much appreciated, Lurky. From those sentences, I feel relieved that PS:T is heading in more or less the direction I would have hoped with this, whilst also retaining its fair share of original concepts. Or specifically, I can imagine those elves being stripped, raped OR strangled, now, which is a level of grief in a video game that my mind can process rather easier. Reading back, I'm making it sound like I have quite the elf-fetish.

Although I could disect and spread that summary, and think some of those descriptions are a little bit loaded (but as I'm far from independent on the matter, that's almost inevitable), I think that's a pretty good summary of events. Point b5 in particular is always worth bearing in mind, though I maintain that BG2 was more than up to the task of handling it. God knows this thread could do with one, after me and Lephys have practically been anti-spamming the last four pages. My only disagreement is that I feel a ratio of companion slots to companions of less than 1:2 is a very bad thing, and the ideal for ensuring depth in a story-based tactical rpg sits between 1:2 and 1:3. More than 1:3 really does hamper depth even in my eyes. To be fair, though, that was Jethro's personal view rather than his summary.

That's exactly what I was asking (Thanks!), but now I have the answer I realise it doesn't necessarily answer my question. Fallout 1 and Fallout: New Vegas were both M-rated, but F1 was comically gruesome but fairly fantastical whilst F:NV had an awful lot of moments that were about more human darkness and I, personally, found it desperately unpleasant. Which again, is not a criticism of the writing of NV, which was superb when it was at its most unpleasant, I just don't associate the IE games with being particularly harrowing, and I don't generally look to high fantasy to harrow me. Ymmv, of course. Edit: For the avoidance of doubt, it's not a deal-breaker for me if it is like NV, I'd just rather know in advance so I don't put on my 'let's go dancing with elves' hat only to get there and find a flashback of them all being stripped, raped and strangled.

There's...something...about...that...sentence...that seems...a bit...harsh on...Josh... Anyway, I'm curious for a bit of a Dev response here. What sort of certification would P:E be shooting for? Personally, for something like this, I'd like it to either sit in the (to use British classifications) 15, or high fantasy 18 category (Fallout 1+2, THE ORIGINAL CONAN ). I really admired much of the writing in New Vegas, but it was appallingly grim and on several occasions left me feeling like I shouldn't have bothered playing it (which is to it's credit). I just don't know if P:E needs that level of grimness given that it is essentially high fantasy. Dragon Age dipped in with a few gruesome pieces but it was never the horribly nihilistic sounds of people screaming as they're burning to death that F:NV was. Obviously I'm not after a Disney/Pixar, but I don't want another game that leaves me feeling like I'm a worse person for having played it.

I agree with this, and the best example I can cite of this in well-known literature is actually J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books. Almost all of them provide us with a character who is brilliantly written to be unbearable! It's an excellent device, and while I wouldn't go so far as to call it essential it is definitely not something to be avoided. The difference, of course, is that we are talking about the prospect of most of the companions a player has being dislikable, to the point where it breaks the immersion or makes the majority of the experiences unbearable. The other factor, specifically to dearest Morrigan, was that I liked her as a character and did not find her infuriating (well, okay, once), and also for those who disliked her even more than you did, there was always the option to have someone else who they did like. No point sticking around if you're not enjoying things, Ffordesoon. Plus points on that exciting post, though. First paragraph: Because someone might not share the writer's humour and not want to have any 'funny' characters. Also, the two traits to be congruous to each other so that immersion in the character is not broken. Finally, because if all the characters you make are archetype hybrids who are congruous then the liklihood of them being similar increases even with reduced numbers. The rest truly is us going around in circles. I reiterate that the figure that matters is not the number of companions, but the number of companions divided by the number of companion slots. You can say that they bore less depth than they could've should such design exist in a vacuum. It doesn't, so does the point have any worth? I would argue that it does have limited worth, but it is the same limited worth of point that past experiences of the genre have told us when there are less than 2 companions per slot those companions end up being incredibly stylistically similar. You may not feel the need to come to the conclusion, having nothing invested and having the fortune to have never experienced a similar game spoiled by the companions. I do, and Obsidian should do. 'This is probably too many characters' will be baseless until about two months following the release of P:E, upon which we can gladly bolt the stable door as necessary. The discussion here, frankly, is already too late rather than too early. Again, you lay the blame on the consumers here, but miss the point. If it fails, it will hurt Obsidian. It doesn't matter about whether they should have made a pencil, whether people want fire without burns (incidentally, worse analogy of the thread so far ), and, crucially, it doesn't matter whether we as backers should've demanded more data before pledging. Yes it hurts the backers, but it will hurt Obsidian more in the future. The adventurers hall does not combat the problem, it removes the situation - a large chunk of gameplay. As I have said before, myself and the majority of players would be extremely irritated if we were forced towards the adventurer's hall. Especially since the games that inspired P:E (that weren't IWD) had great companions and P:E promised to emulate that. Finally, I think you'll find you've misread my post there in the way to you refer to me in that last sentence.