Zero

I think a mix of interactive and Old School would be good. Pop-ups over stats that tell you what they do vs. say an all out tutorial.

Black Hound FTW Plott Hound Plott Hound 2 Plott Hound 3 Scottish DeerHound Pharaoh Hound Non-Hounds Beauceron Beauceron 2 Black Lab

I think this would be the main problem. Gameplay-wise it makes more sense to go with an action/adventure format for combat and such if you are controlling a character who doesn't have much control over others simply because there is no reason for them to in most instances.

It would have been nice if there was an "Other Option- describe in thread"

I really,really,really just don't want to deal with any ****ing wolves. That's all I have to say on the subject.

Concept artists do seem adverse to having visible pants on mage-type characters. If people have been watching Game of Thrones, I could see mages in outfits similar to those donned by Littlefinger and Daenerys (the one with the pauldron) . Granted in the latter's case it would have to be in the right setting (e.g. desert-like).

I don't know enough about the world yet. But I would prefer it if mages could blend in as say a commoner, noble, adventurer or what have you.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090401223512/diablo/images/thumb/7/74/Archivist-ConceptArt.jpg/800px-Archivist-ConceptArt.jpg http://mythicmktg.fileburst.com/war/us/media/images/careers/socc_01.jpg http://eduardomedero.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/emedero-the-sorcerer.jpg http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqq4jnueOE1r1g5m2o1_500.jpg http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/71642/Empire%20NPC%20-%20Wizard_qjpreviewth.jpg

Soul Watcher: Watcher of Souls

What would be wrong with having an option? Doesn't fun > realism ?

I wouldn't mind little animations near death where a person does get decapitated, someone frozen from a spell- crumble into ice, someone getting hit by a lightning spell getting fried , or some such. But I'd want it to be seamlessly integrated into the game as opposed to being a finishing move, for me it would be a nice little touch but hardly necessary .

I tend to agree with you. If diplomatic options are available that lead to rewarding alternative paths , then it is fine. But if they are gonna remain the antagonist and you are forced to ultimately clash with them in some form or another it can just be frustrating. You should be able to understand why an antagonist is doing something. But to sympathize with them will cause you to want to help them or deal with them in an alternative way ( that is the case for me at least). Which would make the confrontation even more emotional. The concept of an unstoppable force colliding with an immovable object is a good one. You may sympathize with the villain, but his goals may be completely contrary to yours. Just because you like him doesn't mean you should be able to talk him down. It depends entirely on context. It does depend on the context. If it a game that doesn't present much choice, it can work well. If it's a game that does and you are still forced to go up against them, I wouldn't say it would be bad - but it definitely wouldn't be a "villain you love to hate".

Three Words: Black Knight Armor

I tend to agree with you. If diplomatic options are available that lead to rewarding alternative paths , then it is fine. But if they are gonna remain the antagonist and you are forced to ultimately clash with them in some form or another it can just be frustrating. You should be able to understand why an antagonist is doing something. But to sympathize with them will cause you to want to help them or deal with them in an alternative way ( that is the case for me at least).

Missed your comment before, yeah you're not alone. My Sean Bean comment was a reference to Eddard

Sean Bean?

HEY! Hey! .....dissing other devs isn't cool

I always found it another little annoying thing to have to micromanage, but I suppose if they have to add another skill to the non-combat list *shrugs*

Who sez you MUST have a Big Boss Fight? What makes you think that is a requirement? In Fallout you could convince the Big Bad he was wrong, and he would kill himself. You could avoid him completely and arm the nuke in his base, killing him without ever talking to him. I didn't felt cheated after that. I felt smart. You could even agree with him and join him. Why not? Give us damn options as to how to handle the villain(s). I wrote "stories where you want "Big Boss Fights" not "stories need "BIg Boss Fights"

I think a key part when dealing with this aspect if you are talking about the "MAIN" villain is that you can't have it be too sympathetic. Especially since you are usually a character with free agency. For me when I'm in a game where the villain is a well intentioned extremist or something of the sort, I usually want to take other approaches as opposed to "I MUST STOP YOU BLAHMCEVILPANTS". The man or woman basically has to have broken a moral taboo and I think it has to not be abstracted , I think it needs to be in the viewer's face. And they need to be resolute and unapologetic (ultimately). For a villain to be conflicted or anything of that sort causes them to enter tragic villain/figure territory, which works in some stories. I don't think it works for stories where you want "BIG BOSS FIGHT". I kind of went on a tangent.

I suspect most are doing it for fun as opposed to actively thinking they are influencing the game in any real meaningful way. At best the devs have some free time and peeps can entertain them at worst they ignore them completely and people are just bouncing ideas off each other *shrugs*

I'd prefer something that didn't encourage me to act like a sociopath with an ever changing personality that played everyone like a fiddle. (In other words "yeah I'd like a hidden system").

Depends. Perhaps not modern Bioware style, but from what I remember most of the people writing BGII romance mods were women. Well, they seemed like women. This is the internet after all. Of course, that probably can be ascribed to the general difference in preference for porn between men and women. Considering they only had ANOMEN as an option, I'm not really surprised. I mean ANOMEN. Dude was a douche.

Reading Changeling reminded me of Doppleganger...even though they aren't at all similar. I could see a Doppleganger or a Shapechanger on a minor scale (think Mystique, I would throw in another example but it would be a spoiler) being interesting. But I don't think implementation in a rewarding fashion would be realistic- that is to say having people and the world react to your different changes in a meaningful way. The best one could probably do is add a slight stealth bonus and probably a one off comment or so.

They could just do the ol "non-open world" approach where you can't enter aggressive/attack mode all willy-nilly . So basically everyone is safe unless something gets triggered. A hostile enemy approaches or something in dialog. But I'm not sure how exciting people would find that. I really see no problem with it. Edit: Having children be killable in ways that further the plot seems fine to me (e.g. a future heir or some such). But I realize it would probably cause such a rukus media wise, that if I were Obsidian I would probably want to stay away from it as far as possible.