Quetzalcoatl

I don't think treating NPC's as just another loot container like in the IE games would be a good implementation of pickpocketing. Perhaps they could implement pickpocketing in a way similar to the current stealth system. Standing near an NPC in 'pickpocketing mode' would gradually reveal the items he has in his 'pockets', which would happen quicker the more Perception you have, but it would raise their suspicion at the same time. Stealing an item would greatly raise their suspicion and perhaps even alert them or make them hostile; it would raise less suspicion the more Dexterity you have.

If you genuinely think BG's graphics look better, there's indeed no pleasing you. To stay on topic: Stormwall Gorge has a much better lay-out than Dyrford Crossing, which does indeed feel a bit cramped. The fact that about half the bestiary is on display doesn't exactly help either.

I played the same Baldur's Gate as everyone else, thank you very much. Apparently you haven't, because you then go on to say: which is not really true. All of the plot-critical areas in BG 1 are unlocked through story progression. Nashkel mines, the bandit's hideout and of course the titular city of Baldur's Gate. These are major areas around which the game revolves and that make up a big part of it. Sure, but it was only one half of a game. The other half, from travelling to Brynnlaw to emerging in the elven camp, is the very opposite of sandbox design: story-driven, tightly packed and with no option to actually travel as you would in a sandbox. And unlike in BG 1, new areas on the world map are triggered by quests rather than by being discovered. If you don't see the difference between 'area that be entered at any time, but takes effort to gain access to' and 'area that can only be entered once the story lets you', I can't help you. Equating Fallout and Baldur's Gate in that way is absurd.

BG 1 and BG2 were very high on the "sandbox" ladder. Not quite up on top with Fallout and Elder Scrolls, but player freedom was extremely significant. In the Enhanced Editions (which incorporate ToSC and ToB), and especially in umbrella mods like Big World, this is particularly evident. Once out of the initial "dungeon", the player was free to explore an enormous world, do a huge amount of quests in any order, and kill and loot many enemies. In fact, exploring BG1 and BG2 in this "sandbox" manner was absolutely awesome - and it was made possible, to a large extent, by the kill xp and loot system, that actually rewarded the player for independent actions outside the main plot line. Removing this kind of incentive takes a lot of fun out of "free roam", and makes the game more dull for everyone. I'm not sure what Baldur's Gate games you played, but neither of them was a sandbox, although BG 1 is the closest to one, with the many wilderness environments. Still, areas were unlocked as you progressed through the story chapters - in a true sandbox, you could've visited them whenever you wanted. The mechanics, like shopkeepers' inventories disappearing when you killed them, are also at odds with sandbox design. BG 2 on the other hand isn't really anything like a sandbox at all. Incidentally, almost all of its dungeons have a quest or two tied to them, so it would've arguably been perfectly fine with an objective-based XP system.

The IE games were not sandbox games, far from it. The Fallout games, which came out around the same time, were. Of course, the XP system has nothing to do with whether something is a sandbox game or not.

Filling out the bestiary is obviously an objective.

I don't understand how this would solve any of the perceived problems players have with the current XP system. T:ToN has an objective/quest-based XP system...just like PoE already has.

I don't understand this dichotomy. You think Skyrim fans are the type of gamers who are by definition fond of objective XP?

I was talking about whether it was possible/feasible from a technical/programming perspective.

Partymembers are supposed to be controlled by the player. Auto-dodging of traps implies an A.I. script dictating that character's behavior.

Yes really. There's more than one or two. Go count again. What kind of response is this? If you make a statement, you have to back it up with something. You've refused to do so several times now, which tells me you aren't really convinced of your own arguments.

Really? I see maybe one or two posters in support of pre-buffing and the rest expressing they don't like it.

The game encourages you by having XP improve your character through leveling. Players having to police themselves is bad design. It is worse design if devs think they know how I want to play and railroad my choices. Nobody is railroading/removing your choices, you just won't be able to exploit them for XP. So if you'll make a choice, you'll do it because you wanted to or because *gasp* it was simply fun to do it.

As a matter of fact, I don't. I generally impose restrictions on myself (also for things like resting). But that doesn't change my argument that players have no responsibility to do the same. If savescumming, or any other gameplay mechanics, yields rewards, it's perfectly fine to exploit it (and I occasionally indulge in it myself).

I forgot how many points you get to spend during character creation, but I know you can invest a fairly high amount in the stats that favor raise action points, skill points and combat initiative. Those things are useful for every type of character. There's really no point in not picking them. The game is combat-heavy and getting turns more often (combat initiative) and getting to do more on your turn (action points) are undoubtedly the best benefits you can get. Having more and better skills is also always the best thing, whether combat skills or non-combat skills. It does reward savescumming. If you can pass every skill check in the game or maximize your HP by reloading, that's a reward. Save/(re)load is simply another part of a game's mechanics. You can design a game where skills don't have a random chance of success, you can design a game where you can only save at checkpoints, etc. The player is completely free to use these mechanics however he wishes. It's the designer's responsibility to regulate this (if he so wishes), not the player's.

The stats that raise action points, combat initiative and skill points are unquestionably superior to any other stat, by an enormous margin. It's nobody's 'problem', it's simply a game mechanic. If the game rewards you for savescumming (randomized skill success, randomized HP on level ups, etc.), it's the designer who's ultimately responsible.

You're saying the OP was wrong with anything he said in his first post? Obviously, yes. And you're ignoring my question. How can Obsidian be rushing the game when they already made the decision to delay it long before this thread went up? I'm not sure what the DA:I release has to do with it either. If they feared releasing around the same time, wouldn't that mean releasing later (the opposite of rushing), further contradiction the OP's argument?

How was the OP proven right? Unless you seriously think Obsidian decided to delay the game in response to this thread that was made a few days ago.

Funny they only train to hit? If we are going with "realistic" then misses are much more frequent as living beings usually have great sense of self preservation and they train to NOT GET HIT as well.... Shields/Armor also are not designed to reduce incoming damage...you know that right...? Hey King Henry how you doing man? I got this new state of the art shield that now reduces damage to your troops by half instead of 75%!!! I sincerely hope you don't think the frequent missing in the IE games was a realistic simulation of how a close quarters fight would play out, especially since there was always a chance to miss even stationary/paralyzed/stunned creatures or creatures with terrible AC. The graze system is a much more realistic simulation of actual combat. Though it's a moot point since the goal should be fun, not simulation.

You realize they saved a ton of money by purchasing those Unity assets, right? And shouldn't a smaller team save money? Oh, and Pillars of Eternity's development time will be roughly the same as Wasteland 2's, it will just stay in beta for a shorter period. Your arguments don't really seem to have any merit.

I haven't shipped any titles, but then again, I'm not the one claiming the developers have no idea what they're doing. That would be you. What changes have they made to the attribute system that are so outrageous? Action speed and deflection? Those things were already in the game. Up to here, I can where these opinions come from, even agree with some of it. But that: Any inside information about the company's assets / liabilities you care to share with us and are any of our business? Feargus has said in interviews that their overhead per month is roughly 1 million dollars.. This is I believe their whole company and not specifically the PoE team which only has a fraction of the developers on it.. But they have much higher overhead then say InXile.. Every day this game goes over budget it comes out of their pocket.. not a publisher who has much larger cushions. Funny that you should mention InXile since Wasteland 2 apparently has a much bigger budget than this game: I believe they said its budget doubled from the initial 3 million they raised on Kickstarter, and unlike PoE, it didn't have a focus on pretty graphics. That only solidifies my opinion that Obsidian have budgeted everything correctly and the final game will be fine.

You sound like someone who doesn't really understand how game design works from a practical standpoint. For example, attributes in RPG's are not really core systems, they're essentially number modifiers, they can be tweaked or even completely altered just fine even close to release. In fact, that's the whole purpose of the beta: to get feedback on such things.

Certain tasks do make them obsolete. For example lock picking. Why would you have a second character have a high mechanics skill? Mechanics also governs traps - more characters with mechanic skill means being able to set more traps simultaneously.

Eh, not really. You can pick locks and disarm traps in Pillars too, it's just not spread out over half a dozen skills like in Wasteland 2. And more crucially, Pillars has stealth. You can also take the same skill on multiple party members in Pillars and it will still be useful for each individual party member.

Ok, but as you're saying it, if you select only one party member, the Stealth Circle should reflecting his/her individual ability, a thing that looks like it doesn't apply, looking at mutonizer videos. Am I wrong? In the first video the character in hide armor that stands apart from the 4 party members clearly has a very small circle around him. The 4 party members standing together have bigger circles, which makes perfect sense. So I'm not still not sure what exactly the problem is. It only becomes bigger after killing the party members, which I assume is a bug.