Quetzalcoatl

Why would anyone want to play 'characters with no personality or history'? The point is that implementing unique and elaborate backgrounds costs a lot of effort, time and resources in return for something that adds relatively little to the game and ends up clashing with the role-playing aspect and even limiting it. It's much better to come up with a starting premise (i.e. stranger in a new land) that sidesteps that issue. And I really wouldn't use the Origins in DA:O as an example. They were less 'origin' and more 'excuse to railroad you into the Grey Warden story'.

Freedom to role play without constant cutscenes, limited dialogue responses and other arbitrary limitations getting in the way.

I don't think the poll options are very well-chosen. Like grouping in Arcanum with Mass Effect. The great thing about Arcanum's opening is that it's one of the best set-ups for a blank slate. You're a traveler who crashes in a land that's unknown to you. That's it. No history of being a veteran soldier or growing up at Candlekeep under the care of a wizard. The problem with the DA:O origins is that they were a weak compromise between a blank slate and a more fixed character that ended up amounting to very little. Ideally, I would want the player character to have recently travelled to the region for whatever reason, with the game leaving his/her past undefined.

I don't think the game is supposed to take place in autumn...

Ugh, this topic. What a bunch of trolls...

I'm pretty sure bashing chests in NWN 2 resulted in some of the items in it being damaged, which was actually a nifty idea. Although using AoE spells on enemies only to find out I had accidentally damaged nearby chests was incredibly annoying. I did like the way the detect trap skill was both passive and active.

The combat obviously needs to be terrible to accurately convey the theme of 'torment'.

I would love some good mystery/detective type quests. Though the problem with that is that the process of chasing down leads and deduction is rather difficult to translate to game terms. I'd also like it if quest objectives were deliberately misleading or quest givers were secretly using you for their own agenda. Something like the Moridor's Box quest from Torment.

Why are they even making this a vote? They should pick the combat system based on what they feel is best for the game. The input of backers shouldn't trump that of game designers. To be honest, I can't really muster any enthusiasm for this one, despite being a huge fan of the original. The whole thing screams cynical cash-in to me.

You could try the radical method of not selecting those dialogue options. Obsidian are competent storytellers and I assume the lore will be woven into the main quest and gameplay (the whole soul powers thing), so you'll get the gist of it anyway. I would argue that the problem you describe has more to do with most game writing generally being not particularly good. There are easy ways to remedy the problem of random NPC's being encyclopedias of knowledge. Most of them should just brush you off and answer that they have no time to stand around chatting with you, unless it makes sense for their characters (librarians, touts who ask for a bit of coin to spill information, etc.). Conversely, knowledge should come with its own reward. For instance, learning some scandalous detail about a local politician chould yield some dialogue options (like taunting or blackmailing him) when finally meeting said politician. By the way, I think both Dishonored and Dragon Age: Origins have terrible storytelling, albeit for wholly different reasons.

Bioware made the first Neverwinter Nights, not Obsidian.

So the big innovation is breakable 3d environment, something that has existed since the 90's? Even the IE games had doors you could bash open. And the breakable scenery in that preview struck me as very gimmicky. I thought it was pretty funny that instead of bringing down the bridge with a spell, the mage had to clear the way for the warrior to get past the enemies and do it with his sword. Budget or even price is not interesting for me (as for consumer). I just want waste own time only to best products, and DA: I have less technological limitations than PE, and theoretically can be much better game (if gamedesigners do their work good). Meanwhile due limitations of engine PE can be worse game than DA:I even if Obsidian gamedesigners make own work very good. What limitations? It being 2d? That doesn't impact a stat-based party-focused RPG in any meaningful way. Baldur's Gate 2 was such a game, and most people would argue it was Bioware's best title.

Where's the hate? People are simply pointing out the fallacy of comparing a 4 million budget isometric 2d RPG to a blockbluster AAA RPG with a budget so sizeable that its creators give press releases boasting about how they can afford to spend lots of money on advanced cinematics to make their sex scenes look mature and tasteful. And yes, I fully except Inquisition to be a watered down product. There's simply no way to make an RPG that satisfies both the hardcore and casual crowd, something Bioware has explicitly said to be its goal. That is even without taking into account all the extraneous factors like the cost of celebrity voice acting and console limitations.

Interesting read. Although the last paragraph about 'tough choices' sounds somewhat foreboding.

Wasn't the sorcerer class in D&D basically an admission that the Vancian magic system wasn't all that great? Anyway, it's already been stated that the wizards in this game will have some sorcerer-like characteristics (being able to cast certain spells without preparation or a spellbook).

That's funny, because the problem I have with Numenera is that based on the information released so far, it seems to be almost a point-for-point rehash of the original Torment, right down to the protagonist being some sort of immortal with amnesia, who draws other suffering indivuals to him and who must navigate multiple bizarre words to find the answer to a pseudo-philosophical question of a deeply personal nature. Although I agree that they shouldn't be beholden to the same type of combat as the first Torment, so the fact that they're considering turnbased is at least something positive.

If the companions start at differing experience levels, they will probably end up leveling at different times anyway. The NWN2 system was rather odd in that it scaled everyone to the same level as soon as they joined the party.

Exercise restraint. I do wonder what an RPG with an auto-save system (without being able to make saves yourself) would be like.

So you're saying Icewind Dale has no gameplay? It's linear, after all, as are most combat-heavy games (far moreso than the other IE games). Killing monsters for loot and exp is mechanically no different from choosing a dialogue response - interaction followed by feedback. And no one denied BG and PS:T were by and large linear. They did however allow for player agency, i.e. role-playing. To use Torment as an example: to escape from the Mortuary, you could kill your way through, disguise as a zombie, disguise as a Dustman, leave through a portal, or convince a guard to let you out. That's not gameplay? The comparison is moot anyway since they have already said Project Eternity will be less linear and allow for more room to affect the plot than the BG games and Torment.

How else should he have interpreted your words? In your previous post, you explicitly rejected the idea that doing optional quests in BG2 qualified as gameplay.

Implementing an accuracy penalty for attacking a target while it's moving or attacking from too far a distance could be a way to balance things out. Although that may devolve in kiting-esque shenanigans.

'They're not children, they're just dwarves and Orlans that behave immaturely.' Problem solved. In all honesty, the children in Project Eternity, if indeed killable, are probably made up of too little pixels to generate such controversy. A game with top-notch 3d graphics on the other hand...

I wonder how much differently their games would sell if they announced they would remove or downplay romances. They should at least try to do something interesting with it - have one of the romanceable companions turn out to be a succubus/incubus in disguise, with the love-making scene resulting in a game over.

I like making the main character more prominent. Things like formation are a bit too situational to be a permanent fixture, they should be something that pops up in a small window when you hover over the word formation (it should be there next to journal, stronghold, etc.). Also, icons > words. Not only do they take up much less space, but your mind just 'reads' them faster (this goes especially for inventory management). I would replace stronghold, journal with icons of a tower, diary, etc.