mur'phon

Stun: I agree with you to a point, a single character should level faster, and with the right stats/skills could be able to complete several quests without combat, thus making it easier. However, the level cap is 12, and assuming an entire party of six can reach it, the game could become hellishly difficult for a soloer over time.

Not necessarily, since everyone with a strong soul is essentially a mage, killing them might not be as important. A barbarian might not throw fireballs, but his soul powers let him smash into a formation like a wrecking ball.

I agree with Fox, except the part about serrated edges (at least for swords, Flaberges would be nice to have).

Please try to move past Stage 1 in the grieving process (denial) and go directly to Stage 5 - acceptance. It's the healthy thing to do. I don't think we ready for stage 5 yet, I would say we are cautiously making our way through stage 3. These things can't be rushed and there are several emotional levels that need to be considered Besides who would the target for all the gratuitous gloating that you anti-romance people enjoy...imagine how bored you would be if you couldn't keep raising the point that there won't be Romance in PoE So, you're still in the 'bargaining' stage? We'll all be here for you, Bruce, for the stage 4 depression. Actually, I've said before during the Kickstarter that I don't have a problem with BG2 level of romance. They were easily ignored if you wished, but you still got a lot of interaction with the party members regardless. I guess that makes me a woman without a country, neither promancer nor total antimancer. Anyway, it's dead, Jim, it's dead. I'll be thinking of you during your time of grief. (Did anyone else LOL at the thought of MCA writing a "shotgun wedding" or "farmer's daughter" romance? ) Seems like he might have written one already

-The every stat is useful for everyone is something that should have become standard in CRPGs a long time ago, also, I have ye to see a game play change they made I didn't agree with. -I'd rather have a great short game than a mediocre long one -Devs should remember that most players don't even finish the game once, and even fewer more than once. -Related to the above the illusion of choice is not so bad, make people believe they are making a difference, even if they are not. -Having non magic users be able to shrug off fireballs and be as powerful as magic users breaks immersion big time for me (PoE seems to avoid this) -Torment and Mask of the Betrayer had great stories, but there is a reason I only recommend them to hardcore CRPG players, and I'm not going to replay them. -New Vegas was far, far better than Fallout 1&2 (yes, it's subjective) -Being forced to spend more than 5 seconds to pre-buff before combat is annoying as hell. -save or die spells can die in a ditch -Evil/insane choices are a bit of a waste, give me choices I can see myself making, otherwise you spend a lot of dev time on something few will ever see. -Timed quests can join save or die spells in the ditch. -I'd rather have a few companions that interact a lot than 10+ that hardly say anything. -Resurrection spells can join the others in the ditch, it makes death a lot less meaningful. -Kindly stop having religions/religious people be insane by default (see Honest Hearts for a more fair way of doing it). -If you want to have us fight animals, at least use ones that makes sense (no, wolves are not bloodthirsty man hunters) -Do not make companions without personality who are only there to talk about their foreign culture.

That has bugged me too, however, Eternity is probably the only setting I can think of where this shouldn't happen. Thanks to the soul system, everyone with a powerful soul is essentially a magic user, so it's not just mages who get to be insanely powerful. And this subject related to the original subject also makes me wonder how social class might even function in a setting like PoE, due to the impact of magic. In the real world, an uprising of peasants might be put down because they tended to be poorly equipped and badly led compared to the army a king might be able to put together. What happens in a world where, with a little study, a peasant can learn how to throw fireballs or cast a charm that makes an opponent fight on his side? There's a democratizing effect when the most powerful weapons are available to anyone. Will the soul system mean that such is the case? Will those who want to maintain their power have some justifiable advantage in terms of magical power against those they're exploiting? The average peasant probably wouldn't be able to learn how to throw fireballs, and if magic is genetic you'd be able to make it so the peasants can't possibly be able to learn anything if they never had any magic blood. With the souls thing, you could have a strange type of meritocracy (soulocracy?) where people with "strong" souls are automatically placed in a higher position than someone with a "weak" soul, regardless of mortal lineage. It can also still be just as unfair and stratified, probably even more so as you can't improve your soul if it's "weak" (versus the usual ways you can improve your station in a feudal society), as those with "strong" souls will just be naturally better than you at everything. I agree, it could quickly turn into a meritocracy from hell.

That has bugged me too, however, Eternity is probably the only setting I can think of where this shouldn't happen. Thanks to the soul system, everyone with a powerful soul is essentially a magic user, so it's not just mages who get to be insanely powerful.

Luckily for me, Eternity seems to avoid many of my pet peeves. Useless builds (so I end up using a guide), limited inventory, "mandatory" classes that you kinda have to have in your party etc. The biggest one however, and the one I think Eternity is one of very few games to even try to deal with is the issue of having magic be presented as something very powerful, something to be feared, and then lets non-magic characters eat 10 fireballs for breakfast before cutting the mage in two. Nothing breaks suspension of disbelief (for me) more than having non-magic characters be equal to mages (which also leads me to exclusively play as mages in those games to lessen the pain). Making all characters basically mages solves this neatly, everyone is a mage (or supernatural monster), thus everyone can provide a challenge to my party of spellslingers without it feeling wrong.

Politics will probably be in the background though. For instance racist policies might affect the party directly, or through quests, and the player might be able to affect those during completion of the quest. Also, I'd be surprised if the "high" politics of foreign policy won't have at least some impact seeing as the free palatinate has fought recent wars against both its neighbors. If that priest turns out to be a companion, expect to see issues if the party ever go to Redcreas (or meet someone from there), and Edair is unlikely to like/be liked by everyone thanks to being a veteran.

Note: for this NPC to work, it requires that A: the player is someone special/someone with power, and B: that the player will be in a position to gain power/change (part of) the world during the endgame. Name: (take your pick) Race: Human, though any would work, I'm just assuming there are fewer who despise human companions, compared to other races. Gender: Any, though since the majority of players are almost certain to be male, female might be best. Role: Pragmatist (any class would work) Key Item: a smile (though explosives might be useful too) Appearance: good looking, practical clothes. Feel: A common sense pragmatist, who just happens to agree with you most of the time. The idea here is to have a character who is encountered after the player has started getting a reputation, and will act according to the reputation the player has. If she ends up saying something the player disagree with (because you can't know everything about the players preferences from reputation alone), the player can argue with her, at which point she'll end the conversation by agreeing with the player (a bit like Anders/Viconia). When anyone (including other members of the party) confronts the player, she'll defend him/her, sometimes preventing those confronting from disliking the player. In short, she's the most loyal friend of the player, and will stick with him/her through thick and thin. Too bad it might be an act. In reality this NPC has clear values and goals, and sees the player as someone who can either help or hinder said goals. I don't care much what those goals turn put to be, as long as it's something broadly seen as "good", and is connected to a major quest. She might be fighting to prevent mass extinctions, or maybe she is a firm believer in the potential for science, maybe she wants to prevent the strong souled ruling the others (or any form of the "strong" exploiting the "weak") maybe she is fighting to prevent terrible uses of animancy (skein steel), while believing in its potential. You get the idea. When dealing with the player, she'll express and argue her cause, however, if the player disagrees, she'll appear to accept his/her arguments, until the player has to make another choice relevant to her values/goals, at which point she'll be persuaded once again. The idea is to use the fact that several companions in RPGs can be persuaded to agree with the player (Viconia, Anders, Leliana, Bastilla, etc.), to fool the player into thinking they have managed to change her. This is also why it's important that she defends the player, and can diffuse disputes with others. The player needs to see her as a useful ally, stroking their ego subtly. This goes on until a quest will have major repercussions for her cause, at which point one of two things can happen. If the player has supported her views, and have actively helped her cause, nothing special will happen, she'll support the player and fight for what she believes in. If the player have worked against her cause however, she'll do whatever it takes for her cause, and assuming the player has brought her this far, there won't be a way to stop her. Maybe she blows up the magic device of power, maybe she causes a massive riot that prevents the player from assuming power of a city, maybe she persuades the nobles to not pick you as the new prince. The point is, she locks the player out of choosing an ending that would either A: give the player a lot of power, or B: harm her cause. This doesn't mean the player is locked out of "good" or "evil" endings, only the ones that would (potentially) harm her cause.

I'm with Pshaw, most (admittedly far methodologically flawed) statistics I have seen show that most people don't even finish long RPGs once. I can count on one hand the RPGs I have finished more than once, and on my horns the games I have finished more than twice. Flavor text is great, and so is the occasional comment about your race/reputation/companions.

Karkarov: Don't worry, Sawyer has been very clear that every stat will have a use in combat, sure you could make less effective characters, but he has been clear that he wants to avoid "social characters" and "skill monkeys".

Any character in Alpha Protocol you see as minor (except Sis and Hong Shi), though especially the ice cream guy. I don't think I have ever been so scared/stressed in a game ever. VtmB: again, most of them, special mention to the woman who remember you from before you turned, Grout, Heather (for creeping me out), and Jack. Morrowind: falling from the sky dude.

A prissoner people believe knows who is going to carry out a bombing. If tortured, he/she will say what he/she thinks you want to hear, leading to the wrong person being executed and the bomb going off. Turns out he/she didn't know anything/didn't think you'd believe the truth/misslead you.

Fewer, deeper NPCs, that interacts with the story constantly. Think Alpha Protocol, only more. The point is, stick with a few characters, then use them as questgivers, plot-drivers, vendors etc. Let them drive the plot, and make your relationship to them something important. Basically, I don't want to steal evidence from the guards to make sure some random guy isn't hanged, but I'm happy to steal data from Halbech in order to sell it to Scarlet. Taking the "a lot of small consequences add up" from Alpha Protocol would be nice too. Basically, make the player know that the game is noticing their choices, even if it is just a tiny bonus to stealth.