Lady Evenstar

I could say the same, Syraxis, but I can imagine EA publishing/developing a game that would interest me if this--and Origin--were not at issue. Past a certain point it doesn't matter whether the game is balanced for those with or without item packs and whether that additional companion available as release-day DLC will be important to the story. As a consumer, I don't want to have to think about what constitutes the complete game. As soon I as find myself worrying about such matters, I begin to associate the game in question with that unfun feeling. It's easiest at that point to make the simpler decision not to buy.

At least you are suggesting that they keep picking it back up Hi Melk I like Bioware and despite all this "Bioware Bashing" I guarantee you that almost every person on these forums who claims to dislike Bioware and that there games are sub-par will play Dragon Age 3 when its released. Mark my words I wont. And I think I proved that by not playing ME3 Sub-par... Bioware has entrenched itself in a specific niche, with a very specific style which does not appeal to me. It is far less a "bioware is bad" issue than the hordes of people who very vocaly will explain how they are perfect, which in turn will make those who disagree with that position to overly disagree. I do take offense when a "serious" gaming journalist drools over the consequences in Mass Effect and then discards the writing in Alpha Protocol as shallow for example. BACK ON TOPIC: ( ) I accidentally deleted my continuous game in Anno 2070. Warehouses full of resources. 2.12 million credits. A research town churning out prototypes... all gone... So I have to start a new game and get back countless hours of playtime. I won't. The way things are right now, i don't even know when i'll play another Bioware game again. Sorry boys but I don't quite believe you When DA3 is released and it will be awesome, you'll play it. You won't be able to resist. And to be honest its not that hard to avoid playing ME3, but to not play an incredible fantasy RPG is a different story. So we will have to see.... If it's awesome in a return-control-to-the-player, less cinematic sort of way--and doesn't require Origin--sure. I don't think it's so much an issue of their games being "subpar" as it is them having "moved on" from creating the sorts of games I like to play. Edit: Bah! I didn't intend to quote the entire conversation.

In Betrayal in Antara you learned spells by observing other spellcasters and choosing to study different spell elements. When you had mastered all the elements of a spell, you could cast it.

The only same character/direct sequel that I can recall working well for me was BG2--and that carried over limited stat info and gear related to the PC, nothing concerning the status of NPCs. I see promises of what you do in one game affecting future games as one of those things that sounds good, but ends up being frustrating for all involved. Fans are inevitably disappointed by lapses in continuity between their personal canon and the sequel. Because it's impractical to develop a different game for every possible world state, choices in the first game tend to be circumscribed or tangential to the events of the sequel. I'd much rather have a new game not burdened by the sorts of expectations invited when a game is characterized as a direct sequel.

Betrayal at Krondor. My aunt and uncle asked me to water their plants while they spent the summer after his retirement touring Alaska. This meant a 40-minute drive every Saturday to their home in the country. I wasn't very enthused until I started playing BaK on my uncle's computer. By the end of the summer I had decided the that I needed a 486 at home--primarily for business purposes, of course. ;-)

A mode of play enjoyed by people who are not me.

If they're important to the world or story, I'm fine with dragons. On the other hand, I'm fine without.

Where is the "No, I don't like the sound of that at all and would not buy it" option? I have played WoW and will play TES Online so it's not that I hate MMOs. I'd just like to see Obsidian stable and secure with their own IP. They don't need to be chasing will o' the wisps.

It makes just as much sense to say that hitting someone with a sword is likely to break any potion bottles they might be carrying (a +5 sword likely would shatter all loot) ... but it doesn't really sound like fun to have to constantly refrain from using equipment/abilities because you might damage loot, now does it? I can just imagine my characters chatting around the campfire: "Did you see what he was carrying? ... But, no, you just had to use that shiny new sword rather than your starter blade, so no new crystal ball for me."

There is some risk in using powerful spell-like abilities. With enemies that drop little to no loot a spell can make short work of them. Loot-heavy enemies usually need a "gentler" beating. My proposition is not to make quest-items or super rare items destructible. Only consumables and non-magical weapons/armor. If repairing is implemented in the game, I wouldn't mind broken weapons/armor. So, really, it's just another "make gameplay onerous for folks who like to play wizards" proposal. No, thank you. If hitting too hard with a sword were equally likely to have the same effect I might be more receptive, but I really don't see how it would make the game more fun.

Even if it were possible to locate and work with unknowns to get extensive high quality, but inexpensive, voice acting--with contracts written to include additional sessions whenever the devs thought they might like to change/add dialogue, it would require a huge amount of time to locate and vet this obscure talent. The money paid to voice actors isn't the only cost of extensive voicing, and I'd rather resources went elsewhere.

Most of my playtime was spent with Skyrim and older games. I quite enjoyed Kingdoms of Amalur, which is the only new game I can recall buying, but somehow GOTY by default is just wrong.

Since the backers don't all want the same things, some of us are bound to be disappointed. Personally, I supported the game because I was curious to see what they'd do and not because I thought they'd develop the perfect game for me. If they do, it will be a pleasant surprise. Of course, if I think the game is perfect, others will necessarily be disappointed. ;-)

I would prefer that Bethesda make Fallout 4 and consider it rather tacky of Obsidian to host this thread.

"Good morning America how are you?" is the first line of the chorus to The City of New Orleans ...

Thats known as the "bait and switch". And something Obsidian might get away with ... once. I hope they'll think long and hard about whether it's in their best interest to produce a game that a subset of IE fans will love, but that will have a significantly narrower appeal than those games did. I hate to see Obsidian poised to shoot themselves in the foot once again.

But beta will likely be a little late for basic redesign. The game we pledged to support was an IE nostalgia game. Those games were not grim grinds that placed low value on player time. The game mechanics Josh describes sound distinctly unfun to me. I'd intended to increase my pledge to include the expansion. Now I wonder if I don't want to lower it to an amount that will annoy me less if the game turns out not to be my cup of tea (or what was pitched).

I think Skyrim's use of potions is fine, although I can agree that the usefulness of +conjuration potions is tied to flaws (i.e. excessive limitations on casting) in the design of mages.

So you want mages to start around level 7 and have access to party members at the very beginning of the game, contrary to Obsidian's current plans? The BG2 approach worked for BG2, especially since dual classing a human mage gave cheap access to fighter abilities, but class design inevitably limits content design. If you want the protagonist to start out alone--or face specific challenges alone--every class has to be able to handle those challenges successfully. I can't see the sorts of challenges that can be handled solo by a mage with one magic missile (or friends spell) per day being very interesting for classes that don't share the limitations you want to place on mages.

Mages use their health as a casting resource in Betrayal at Krondor/Betrayal in Antara, and I find it more hassle than a strategic addition to the games, particularly because those are use-skills-to-improve-them games. I suspect I'd like the approach even less in a game that's party-based, but where the protagonist will not always be part of a party. I wouldn't rule out the approach for really powerful spells, but I've not found it particularly fun in the past.

No, thank you. Skyrim's 20% can be just the edge you need to get through an encounter--and to me micro-managing very short-term buffs on a party of six just sounds tedious. In my opinion the model of potions being something you use when you need a little extra help makes perfect sense. I've never kept a finger on the potion button so your description of what "you" do doesn't match my reality. Why spam a resource with an economic cost if you can succeed without that expenditure? You know, so that you can purchase better equipment that is truly "equip and forget." There is no "players should." Obsidian needs to support a variety of playstyles and levels of familiarity with game systems and content.

So what? I cannot see why this is a problem. PE is a single player game not an MMO. They don't have to balance classes so that a spellcaster is equally powerful to a fighter in each battle. Looking at BG2 which is my favourite RPG, I liked the fact that spellcasters were powerful when they had all their spells available and "useless" when they were out of spells. It added depth to the game and made me play them with care. If the PC starts out solo they need sufficient abilities to deal with encounters. This can be handled either by giving mages abilities or by making the encounters so trivial that they can be completed by a mage poking things with a dagger. Personally, I much prefer the former approach. Also, while it's true that classes needn't be equally useful in every encounter, they do need to feel comparably powerful overall. Few like to feel that the kind of character they prefer to play is less than useful. If you heap restrictions on mages compensation will be due.

Ah, yes, Obsidian needs to discourage stay-at-home Moms from frivolously jumping up whenever the baby cries ... Seriously, folks have lots of reasons to save frequently that have nothing to do with save scumming--and really don't need designers of entertainment deliberately adding a debuff to the annoyance of interruptions.

I'd prefer fewer classes, no multi-classing, and lots of opportunity to develop the classes in different ways via feats

I said no, but I think that there should be encounters that are unwinnable if my party is too low level.