Quetzalcoatl

'To grant yourself all these buffs or to deny yourself all these buffs' is not a particularly interesting choice. If the argument is that you didn't have to use the buffs, then what are they there for? I don't see how they could've implemented it much better. The spirit eater feats were all very creative and had ties to story, combat (different methods for devouring animal/undead/ghost spirits) and even crafting. The problem was the imbalance: it was trivially easy to Suppress a couple of times and then basically never have to worry about the spirit hunger again. That's not a deus ex machina. Gods are a common part of the Forgotten Realms, they didn't come out of nowhere. Of course the option to tear down the wall would've made for a better ending, but you can blame WOTC for that, and the rule that CRPG's can't make major changes to D&D worlds.

I can certainly understand why you would want to hold this belief, but the evidence seems to indicate otherwise: * We know that there will be no buffs that last for multiple combats, which (like it or not) was certainly a major part of the gameplay in the IE games. * We know that there will be no abilities in combat that are serious enough to require the use of "antidotes" (hard counters), as such abilities reduce player freedom. * We know that all classes will have (roughly) equal roles to play in combat -- so, if a spellcaster has 10 abilities available to him/her at level 5, fighters and rogues will also have a similar number of active abilities, and the impact of invoking these abilities on the flow of combat will be (again, roughly) the same. * We know that (regardless of how good the monster's AI is) that the player will have the ability to disable / interfere with it -- there was a recent interview that proudly reported that there would be a "flypaper" ability for fighters that prevent enemies from disengaging. All of these mechanics would be right at home in DA:O. Given the limitation of funding associated with this game, it seems very unlikely that we will end up with more abilities (for this purpose, spells are simply a special type of ability) total than DA:O had -- but these abilities will have be divided among twice as many classes. That means that either most abilities will be shared shared between classes, or there simply won't be very many abilities available to each class. If the former, then the classes will tend to blur together (differing only in look and feel, rather than functionally) -- if the latter, leveling up will be a very simple process indeed. This fits in with another promised feature: All builds are viable, there is no such thing as a "bad build". Remember, non-combat abilities are open to all classes: the only reason one class would be better at certain abilities than another is due to complimentary stat requirements (a rogue would be expected to have a high dexterity, so would be good at non-combat skills that are dexterity based). However, since there won't be any bad builds in this game, there is nothing stopping the player from making (say) a dex-based spellcaster, who would then be just as good as the rogue at dexterity based non-combat skills. This is, shocking enough, very similar to the way in which DA:O handled non-combat skills. So.... Other than a desire not to have wasted your money, what reasons do you have to believe that mechanically PoE will not be far closer to DAO than any of the Infinity Engine games? Most of what you said here is flat-out fabricated stuff that contradicts what info has already been released about the game.

Why did you turn Pallegina into a Smurf? All those portraits look great to me (the companion ones are the best, but that is to be expected since they're unique characters).

The timed quests in the Baldur's Gate games were an interesting way of adding tension, but their implementation was fundamentally flawed. Minsc could attack you for not going to rescue Dynaheir in the Gnoll Stronghold...while you were standing in the Gnoll Stronghold.

That's a 4:3 aspect ratio, which the IE games were designed for. The UI will be designed for a widescreen display now. So that analysis isn't much use.

Well, we know the game has a narrator. Personally I thought it was really cool what they did in Mask of the Betrayer, with the narrator actually showing up in person near the end of the game (and his narration making perfect sense in hindsight).

How so? I think something like 'up your pledge to add another level to this mega dungeon' fits the definition of a marketing gimmick much closer. Whereas a stretch goal of simply enhancing the game is both more 'boring' and more realistic.

To be fair, he does have a point. The Elanee character and romance was more creepy and unsettling than any 15-level dungeon filled with untold monstrosities could ever be.

Just imagine the stash is a bag of holding with a hole in it, and that hole is actually a dimensional gateway leading to a variety of storage accomodations.

It got rave reviews upon release, so that was hardly it. It sold badly (relative to the other IE games) because it was set in the obscure Planescape setting, whereas Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate were set in the Forgotten Reams, which was a big draw back then. The Fallout games, which also took place in a non-traditional setting, apparently sold even less than Torment. I have one issue with that. I love Planescape. It was easily my favorite 2nd Ed campaign world. I actually owned every single book for it at one point. Yet even I didn't buy Planescape: Torment at release. I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said. The Planescape setting was discontinued, so it most certainly wasn't even remotely as popular as the Forgotten Realms. Well, it must have done something right, since this game is going to incorporate a lot of elements from it (role-playing through attribute checks, 'mature and thematical exploration', etc.). It's also the best-selling game on GOG by the way.

It got rave reviews upon release, so that was hardly it. It sold badly (relative to the other IE games) because it was set in the obscure Planescape setting, whereas Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate were set in the Forgotten Reams, which was a big draw back then. The Fallout games, which also took place in a non-traditional setting, apparently sold even less than Torment.

Some interesting bits from those articles: I wonder if we'll be able to travel (most of) the world when we want to, or areas will be unlocked? 'Make progress' sounds like it could mean just advancing the main quest rather than opening up new areas.

The creature models and animations look very detailed and impressive. Kudos to everyone who worked on them. I guess if I had to nitpick something, it would be that the ghoul looked a bit too 'floaty' to me. Perhaps its ribcage and other boney parts could be a bit more pronounced.

Why? When IWD obviously worked. At the time it sold even more then the lauded Torment. I can assure you that an Icewind Dale spiritual successor Kickstarter wouldn't raise nearly as much as Torment did. The Icewind Dale games don't seem to have as enduring a legacy as the other Infinity Engine games. Of course, this game has full-party creation and they could always set the expansion or sequel in a part of the world with a cold climate.

Some spells will go from per-rest to per-encounter to at-will. That is a form of scaling.

I would be more worried if he came away with the preview being impressed. We are talking a review site that concluded that New Vegas' writing was vastly inferior to Fallout 3 (and subsequently accused Obsidian of phoning it in).

This game is going to be a pretty low-level campaign with only 6 spell levels, right? So I don't think we'll get in the realm of save-or-die spells...yet. Of course, there is an additional concern with save-or-die spells in this game: the lack of resurrection.

They could show individual queue bars under/next to party member portraits, but they would probably be tiny.

You forgot the abandoned Ironfist Stronghold from NWN2.

Really? I thought they all looked distinctly different and had their own unique look. It's one of my favorite things about the Infinity Engine games, in fact. That being said, I agree that I don't quite see the merit of sharing specific art assets between this project and Numenera.

If you don't visit it in the fampyr stage, how would you "experience" the change? Well, replays obviously. Or you could visit it and bypass the fampyrs with a non-combat solution, only to return later and see the change. Just an example. A whole new game mechanic (with all the development effort that goes along with it), for something that only might be experienced by some players (within one playthrough)? Not sure that's a good investment. 'A whole new game mechanic?' They would just have to replace a fampyr with a different form of undead after a certain amount of in-game time has passed. It would be a cool way to show off reactivity and integrate the lore into the gameplay at the same time.

If you don't visit it in the fampyr stage, how would you "experience" the change? Well, replays obviously. Or you could visit it and bypass the fampyrs with a non-combat solution, only to return later and see the change. Just an example. Who says they won't stay young forever? The major difference I see is that they eat human flesh rather than drink human blood. That, and I assume no weakness to sunlight.

I like this take on the undead. It would be cool if their evolution (or rather, devolution) would be something that you could witness dynamically in the game. So that if you don't you visit a fampyr-filled area until late in the game, they will have become (dar)guls, revenants or even skeletons.

The problem with the archetypes is the way that it's often done: it's mindlessly ticking off a box. 'Here's the good, neutral and bad options', even when it makes no sense. I'm reminded of Dragon Age: Origins, where in Ostagar there's a prisoner. There is a quest to get him some food and water...or you can kill him. For no apparent reason. Even though you've just enlisted in a military organization to protect the people. When I say the responses should be tailored to the conversation, I mean that the tone of your responses should be informed by what the NPC just said. Here's a good example: Someone threatens you with harm unless you keep quiet. Your responses are: 1. Return the threat in kind. 2. Lie about not saying anything and maybe rat him out later. 3. Back down from the threat. 4. Maintain your composure. All the responses are tonally consistent with themselves and with the threat the zombie just made. There is no 'casual' response or anything else that sticks out.

Dialogue writing shouldn't be approached with a consistent set of archetypical dialogue options. The responses should always be tailored to the conversation at hand.