Silent Winter

Yes, obviously the "reactivity" I am looking for is getting dialog option 3 to change to "Eat Cold Steel", "Eat Fiery Death", or "Eat Mother Natures Fury" based on my class. The only real class reactivity in an Obsidian game worth mentioning is in BG2 when you get a different "stronghold" based on class. And there were still only what 3 of them? No, I am looking for REAL response to character creation that takes a character background into account. Not race/class and nothing else. I am talking quests specific to certain background choices, possible endings locked behind certain background options, potential faction relationships being different at game start, etc etc. I am not talking about the game flagging me as needing to be hailed as a "Warrior" instead of a "Wizard" because I choose fighter. The examples you gave were all race/class combos - hence my response. If my character creation choices are limited to 'Human Male Noble Fighter' v. 'Orlan Female Orphan Mage' then I'm going to be pretty disappointed too. Are you also expecting people to know your background? So you're going to adventure by staying at home? Again, it would be better to have as many dialogue / quest options as possible and let us roleplay it. If you're expecting Obsidian to cater for every possible background choice combined with every possible race AND class combination and creating unique dialogue choices (throughout the game - not just a one-off because 'see - reactivity') for each then you're being unfair to them. As for ""Eat Cold Steel", "Eat Fiery Death", or "Eat Mother Natures Fury"" or being hailed as "Ho Warrior/Wizard" being the only way to show class reactivity - that's hardly a realistic concern. I envisioned more subtle options and quest solutions based on gameplay as well as dialogue options. Fighters might size up a physical threat more readily and, if intelligent, be able to interject with some knowledge that gains an upper-hand vis a vis intimidation (and if not intelligent then a similar option might provoke a conflict). Alternatively, Cyphers might be better at reading people and spotting a connection between the Elven vase on their desk and their apparent distrust of Orlans. Even being able to create dialogue (more than just a one-off) to combine every race/class combination seems like a large task to me. Certain specific cases, sure, like the half-orc paladin mentioned above, might be worth taking into account for some meetings. But for the most part - people will react to your class OR race depending on their own perspective on life / society. Not to mention that we're playing a party so how should they react when an Orlan Wizard, a Dwarven Cypher and an Elven Monk walk into a bar? 'Blank Slate' is not what I'm after but being able to play the character I want to, rather than a limited number of history scenarios, is better for me. Give us dialogue options that let us make our character, not just let us make our character and then give us the dialogue options that fit. Edit: Oh, and BG didn't have just 3 strongholds - it was one per base class, so 6, I believe (sorceror and mage were the same and Barbarian and fighter were the same - could have been better with more time / budget, I agree)

You're confusing race/class reactivity with history reactivity - the game can still offer dialogue choices for druid v fighter etc without needing a whole background check.

The definitive Troll /thread

If Obsidian is working on multiple endings then I'd rather those endings were dependent on my in-game actions and choices rather than a button I pushed at Char-Gen. Not that it wouldn't be cool to throw in an extra personalised bit based on class - druid returns to nature kind of thing - but given how much they'll be able to do, adding in histories as well would be too much. It's not a case of 'a blank slate with no personality' but that we have our own personal history and use that to inform in-game decisions, which then affect what happens. Just because a history is non-specific, doesn't mean we can't roleplay it. As an example: I started a BGT runthrough as a Chaotic-Evil Sorceror. He'd been a bit of a brat as a child and then power-hungry as a teen, though he'd kept it quiet from Gorion. He'd always had a soft-spot for Imoen though, the only one he'd ever had any affinity with. Over the course of the game, through the influence of Imoen and one or 2 other party members, including Viconia's personal struggle, he became chaotic-good (at least as far as I was concerned - the engine didn't change his alignment but in-game actions affected the ending, not the alignment) so that he got the good ending for TOB. So even with BG, where there's no real way to change your history, you can make your own story and have it affect in-game events. (and I simplified the background I made for the sake of brevity). So in the end, I'd rather have in-game choices that matter vs. pre-game ones. Of course, I'd like class and race to come up and affect dialogues or even whole quests, but history just isn't that important if there are enough in-game choices. It's up to us to roleplay it, not have the game make those choices for us and only present us with things appropriate to our pre-defined background.

It's actually because they're out to kill you - Gorion was just in the way. Going to Nashkel and the mines is Jaheira's/Montaron's idea - you just tag along for 'safety in numbers' if you're 'evil' or for helping out if you're 'good'. And you don't have to run to Nashkel mines if you don't want to - you'll end up there sooner or later but if you don't want to play the game that way then head off to other locations and see what happens... So we could have more intricate backstories than in BG (where your backstory was central to the plot and less mutable) but then the Arcanum route would be fine (and be able to choose "grew up in a mid-size town and kept his head down" for 'no significant backstory'). I seem to recall reading that you'd be new to the area and 'just off a ship' , but I could be misremembering an idea-post.

Ah but if he was a stalker class then he'd have gotten a +2 to stealth and we wouldn't have seen his post

I agree that such a bonded ranger should feel uncomfortable in civilised towns/cities. Perhaps they get a concentration penalty (or don't revover health as quickly) and grumble about the time spent there (I seem to recall Jaheira (druid) complaining about being in the city (and other companions complaining about being in the countryside) in BG). curiously enough, I'm re-reading those books at the moment. wit-bonding was my first thought as a comparison too, but I think this takes it a step further with the shared stamina pools so not just getting grief-crazed when your animal dies.

I think he just meant that comparing removing knowledge of the lines and bases from baseball is not remotely the same as removing the DC targets and health statuses from enemies in PE. (Whereas you may have just meant that there are obviously reasonable limits to obfuscation and the question is merely where to draw the line). It would be more like not knowing how tired the pitcher is when facing him - if you know his arm is tired then you can prep for a slow-ball rather than a fast-ball (NB: I don't watch/play baseball so my knowledge of the game is limited to what I've seen in movies - feel free to correct my assumptions). Of course, the pitcher could be faking that he's tired and giving visual feedback to that effect when in fact he's got a fast-ball up his sleeve (And I know that's not the same as 'faking' bleeding to death) Off the baseball analogy: I still hope that removing target values is an option (probably enforced in expert mode but optional for normal mode). And although I like seeing 'uninjured'/'injured'/'near death', I can understand some people wanting to obfuscate that a little more.

I initially voted for less impact but then I read that you meant to include class and race and dialogue choices/reactions so I'd like more of that. As for character history - I still like BG-style, start out young, write your own bio, and go from there (although your mysterious origins in that and "why is everyone out to get me?" was fun too). It's not that I wouldn't like a more complex system - but given the budget, I'd like more focus on what we can do in-game, and less on slight variations to some Char-Gen options. I never played DA:O so I can't peak as to how well that worked but from the previous posts it sounds like a good idea that was implemented poorly as they may have run out of ideas/budget after the first couple *shrug*

Thanks for the update - wilderness areas coming along nicely, looking forward to the final versions. Love those concept art pics I also like this take on trolls - they're natural looking given their environment. I liked the idea of them as swift pack-hunters who might jump out of the environment where they were camouflaged and make my team scream in surprise like level 0.5 adventurers....but then I was reminded of blue-circles under characters: I did turn the GUI off when I took the shots. Will there be options for separate party/enemy feedback circles? Or is it 'both on' or 'both off'? Or could you code a 'surprise attack' from a well-hidden enemy that makes their circles not show up (even when pressing 'tab' or whatever)? (I think in BG you only got the circles when selecting character or pressing 'tab', but my afternoon-at-work mind is playing tricks on my memory)

On-topic: I agree with what Lephys said and I apologise for the following OT sidenote: Except that the delayed consequences can just be looked up on the internet. And the person who's reloading is reloading why? Because getting the results they want via the choices presented to them is the most important thing to them. So, again, they can just look it up if they're that worried about it, because you can't prevent people from communicating things 4 hours after the game releases. Yes, but delayed consequences are also good, just not for the reason of preventing save-scumming. Like (in BG1) helping or killing that merchant guy in cloakwood forest and then either getting the merchant league quest or fighting his brother later. I like that your actions/choices have farther reaching consequences. /OT

The thing with the NWN2 OC for me was that, although I wanted a rogue in my party, it kept forcing you to take 'NPC-flavour of the month' with you so you HAD to drop somebody. Therefore the rogue (Neeshka not being very good in combat) was the one who was always dropped out. (Probably helped that my ranger PC could at least find traps and had the DEX to avoid damage from most of them). For PE, I'd like some traps that are worth taking the time to avoid (lethal or near-enough) rather than the 'ok, I'll take the hit' , and other valuable rogue skills not going to waste (use the 'chime of opening' for opening chests, etc). Of course, you should be able to get by without a thief but it should be a different experience than having one.

I've just started Temple of Elemental Evil for the first time. Many of the first quests in Hommlet seem to be less 'quest-lines' as 'quest-spaghetti'. I was a little put off at first but it was actually good to get me going round to talk to everybody. I can see that it would make replays a bit tedious though. There seemed to be no 'go there, do this, get XP' quests beyond the killing of the 2 spiders (I've not gotten far into the game yet - just helping a few people around Hommlet - gone to Moathouse but haven't completed anything yet). I'd like a few quests like that, but also a few simple quests to 'get started' and learn the gameworld (things that are non-essential and could be skipped on a replay if you wanted). I also like the idea of quests that are indirectly connected as per Lephy's example of the bandits and the pig. Long-term quests that you can't complete until later in the game, or that thread through many chapters are also nice. So yeah, a nicely balanced mix of quests is good - with a journal that makes sense.

Good point about the brawny - I'll work on the proportions more. Ears could be a bit longer - I also need to add the hair. Thanks for the input [i recently had my power-supply unit go bad so I've had to wait for a new one to get back to work on things - busy busy too but I'll find some time to work on this] Girls'n'Guns - always popular lol (though personally, I 'd like to know more about the dwarven ranger) That's a nice pic

That could be done with specular though - leather of any colour should be distinguishable from steel. With only 6 party members, colouring your characters' armour shouldn't be a big problem - my druid dyes his half-plate lime-green and my battle-mage dyes his hot-pink (hey, he likes it that way). [ok, I'm not serious] Then again - for those of us who want their armour to be armour-like - it would make sense to account for a natural steel-colour on all, and only dying the cloth... (and that feathered cap - we could dye the feathers ) Can't say I'll be too bothered either way, full-plate v. 3/4.

I also liked the MM effect in BG - it's the best implementation of MM I've seen too - doesn't come across well in the screen shot because yes, they change size and zoom around - look more glowing etc. I'll reserve final judgement on PE's effects til I see them in action but I don't think those firey missiles are overdone. I guess it depends on how much is going on at once - during a couple of NWN2 fights it became hard to see the action because the whole screen was filled with effects. I'll agree that lens-flare is unnecessary but that's not the be-all-and-end-all of 'effects' - if it looks like fire / lightning / etc then I'll be happy.

I like the spell effects, lightning and firey-magic-missiles - though I'd personally make the orb a bit more transparent. Perhaps being able to distinguish characters and classes will become easier when we get to know what a PE druid/mage/monk looks like. I forget if we could easily distinguish a fighter/paladin/cleric in plate-mail in BG before they performed some class specific action (?) Mages in robes were easy of course and rogues would often wear a hood but I'm not sure about the others.

I'd prefer this style too - they've already mentioned the inclusion of narrative in dialogue (not necessarily in italics - they might do that or might do the PST way of novel-writing 'The man approaches you and yells "oi, these berries gave me the runs" while trying to make an aggresive stance and clench, both at the same time' There may be a case for the [LIE] and [TRUTH] tags, but I'd prefer a more natural method of communicating between the player and character.

I keep repeating myself on this point a lot but: I only played BG+IWD for the first time a couple of years ago - loved them (BG more so but the artwork in IWD was great) and loved the UI too (BG2 more than BG1). I honestly think the stylized nature added to the atmosphere of the game. No nostalgia involved. I can deal with the NWN / NWN2 UIs but I find having semi-transparent windows floating over half the game-screen to be both ugly and immersion breaking. (Yeah, I used that term - it's a real thing). Having said that - I wouldn't mind if it was minimal UI but still stylized. I imagine you'll be able to hide the UI and use keyboard-shortcuts for it too though so if you don't want the UI cluttering the screen - ctrl-H for the win

But also leads to throwing PC out the window when that save game is corrupted by something like: Crash during save; power-cut during save/play; game breaking bug; act of 3-year-old; etc I always alternated through 3 save files when playing BG - not to go back and change my decisions but to reduce possibility of being unable to continue game. Having said that - I'm not averse to reloading a tough battle a few times if I need to (ie half the party is wiped out) to improve my strategy.

Sure - but there's also the old saying that "genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - i.e., it's no good being inspired if it never gets done - takes hard work too. I've got lots of great ideas for stuff, but I've got no deadline and a lot of it ends up unfinished or 'to do' I remember a few years back, while my wife was pregnant with our son, that I was doing a web-comic. I set myself a deadline to finish up the main story before the birth (as I knew I'd have no free time after). That was some of the best work I've done... (granted, a small team of one is easier to organise

Can't edit it but my resolution quote was off for the small portraits - should be: 73x86

Ah, ok - when they said "windows conventions" I figured 'convention'='how things are usually done' rather than 'hard-coded to work this way'. (I'm still on XP so not going to get to know those fun'n'games until I can upgrade my whole system in a year or so). If gog offered Linux support, I'd get the Linux version instead.

Thanks for posting these - looks great (pre-UI notwithstanding) As for portrait sizes, Josh said in one of the update threads that the larger portraits for the character screens would be about 210x330 (BG Large size - not the medium size we saw on character screens in BG) and the in-game UI ones would be around 40x70 (I'm getting those numbers wrong but it was about that)

Except that there are those of us who wouldn't choose the C: drive at all. Your 2 suggestions might be fine for you (and I agree that they're better than just "my docs") so you don't see a need for being able to choose the location. But neither of your 2 suggested locations would be great for me. I like to keep all my game-data together on the D: drive since that has the space for them. My C: drive does not. So I dislike being made to install something in a location of the developers' choosing (be it the whole game or just mods/saves) unless there is a technical need for it. (I'm probably jumping the gun on the mods issue but my BGT override folder grew to epic proportions and my NWN2 folder is also very large) Edits for it not posting the whole post glitches