Emc2

Yes I agree that my point about the clunky animations was a bit off topic, but I also raised the point about the significance of the additions you pointed out. As I said, there are people who don't give a **** about the combat movement when the basic idea of the game is to put characters on a good position to do their mindless slashing. They won't sacrifice mechanical consistency for the sake of visual feedback, at least at this point of development. I've not played the game myself so I can't tell how it 'feels' but as far as I've seen, there is no problems in that area. It looks like playing IE games and only problem regarding the real time aspect of IE's combat was the poor pathfinding. I'm sorry if I offended you with my semi-off topic, poorly expressed opinion and I hope some people can contribute more useful posts on topic.

The point of not putting Romance in mostly includes the PC-Companion/NPC Romances. This is not the same thing as pre-written NPC-NPC Romances or even the PS:T one. Romance in this case means that you can be in a relationship with another character in the game based on your own choices and actions. Let's say the game has 8 companions. Each one most likely has a personality and they have their own interactions with other pre-written NPCs. This is fairly easy to do since it's pretty much certain what will happen between them. It's just not the same with PC-NPC relationships. It's hard to write a character who likes "you" as a PC since there are so many playstyles and conversation options. It's just hard enough to make some emotions between PC and the other guy, making the other guy think that you are the one is just too much work for this project, as they said. It would most likely end up to be a total mess instead of likable party. They probably will include romance at least in some form, but there will not be PC-NPC romances unlike some other big RPGs.

I went and checked the animations from some YT videos (I'm not in the BB) and I have to agree that they could improve the attack animations a bit on some weapons. This is not really a big thing for me as I don't really care about the visual feedback on mechanic-heavy games. I can enjoy ADOM even with the ASCII graphics and I don't think the game would improve that much with proper graphics (even though they are trying to improve it). So I guess I don't think the same way you do. This doesn't mean your points are in any way invalid though. There is always room for improvement. For most backers/developers the one-spot-based combat is a good choice considering the importance of positioning in this game. The combat just doesn't need to be any more fluid than it is ATM (except some attack animations) since it does its job well enough for me. NOTE: These are just my opinions/thoughts, not facts!

There was this one shout that threw insults and could be used to help sneak around dungeons. I found that fairly useful. I'm not sure if there was a spell equivalent though. I still remember the first time I heard that "hey skeever butt!" after I had beaten that damn dragon priest guarding that shout. I felt a bit disappointed.

I think some people here are kinda missing the point. "Dumbing down" stuff isn't necessarily a bad thing (look at the XCOM remake). Most of the stuff in that list in the first post are just objectively bad desing choices. 1. This isn't really true. You can die and for me that means failing. Also if you fail to kill someone without being noticed in the Brotherhood quests, you have to pay for the crime. For most ppl this counts as failing and they usually reload until they succeed. I do agree that there should've been more instances where failing to do something would lock the quest for the rest of the game. 2. This is just bad/lazy game design. The more impact my faction choice has, the more i feel like having a role in that world. I fully agree that this is something OE needs to consider when they do/did the faction stuff. 3. This is pretty much the same as the second point. 4. This is not bad thing. It's easier to follow the quest when you have clear directions on your journal. You can always ignore the whole journal and map marker system amd rely on conversation info if you prefer. I have just recently learned to appreciate the BG/PST style journal as it adds to the immersion, but Skyrim does it in a way that makes it easier for casuals. I did prefer the journal on Morrowind though. 5. Morrowind has the best conversation system in the series and skyrim has the worst (IMO). That doesn't mean skyrim's version is just plain bad: it does its job well enough and i can see some people preferring it that way. This isn't a problem in PoE, as it has heavier focus on the conversations and text anyway. 6. I have nothing to say here... did Skyrim have puzzles? This is honestly the smalles problem in PoE as i don't expect it to be very puzzle heavy, in the traditional sense. 7. Skyrim had a nice amount of 'artifacts' that made the exploring interesting. I don't have anything to say about the actual value as i just used to play around in dungeons and villages without really paying attention to the items amd equipment. The waste of development time thing... way off topic but if it gave the developers money and if some people enjoyed it, i don't think it was a total waste of time. As long as even a minor group is happy, the game was worth the time. It's not that the game has made any lives worse, as far as i know.

I've been playing Persona 4 (For those who don't know it's pretty much the most japanese RPG you can get, great game though) and that game showed me how much impact Romance has in character development. I've never really cared about romance in CRPGs (I didn't even know it existed in BG when i first played it) as I didn't really care about most characters anyway. Character doesn't need a romance option to be well written but it definitely adds to the personality and depth if it is done well. What bugs me with most RPGs that include romance are the irrational romances. Racial differences or even total opposite ideals are usually irrelevant, as long as you say the right things (or even worse, give enough gifts). My point is: If game is to include romance, limit the romances with certain characters to specific races or acts. If i play Human and decide to romace with Orlan, god knows what the possible child would look like. Being a Priest (using the RL definition of priest) instead of Barbarian should make a difference as well. Saving one of your companion's parents from bandits for example would be a good way to open new dialogue options with that guy. I personally won't mind if they won't include any romance options as it is a lot of work to make them properly. I prefer interesting characters without romances to one-dimensional, easily charmed followers.

Being non-linear doesn't necessarily mean you have to have multiple endings in the main story. What really matters (IMO) is the stuff you can do during the story/quest. Dark Souls did the choices pretty well, compared to most recent RPGs. If you took master key at the behinning, you could explore a huge chunk of the world and beat some of the first bosses in any order you want or not beat some at all. You can also decide to kill certain "innocent" NPCs to get access to some places early or to get items not accessible otherwise. Even though your decisions don't have much impact on the game itself, it still felt more free than Mass Effect or DA:O. In Chrono trigger you have total of 12 different endings (not counting slightly different variations) depending on when and how you beat the final boss. You can even beat the boss halfway through the full game. Still, the game felt more linear than Dark Souls. Non-linearity can be easily applied to sidequests to make the game feel less linear by tying the quests together (for example: both require you to do same thing, therefore motivating you to do the required thing or completing first quest prevents you from completing the second quest by using the same unique items in fetch quests). This was done well in Planescape: Torment I personally wouldn't be too worried about the quest desing. That early ending thing was enough proof for me.

I've been playing Planescape: Torment in the past weeks and the lack of highlighting and small hitboxes on containers and corpses are some of the biggest problems for me in the game. Especially with widescreenmod. I personally do not mind if they leave the highlighting as it is but making some containers not accessible/visible if you don't have the required stats/skills might work better both Gameplay and RPG-wise. It is basically a new layer to the whole lockpicking mechanic, this time you just wouldn't always know you are even missing out something.

I don't think Eternity needs any alignment system at all. Most of the time the choices you make are either black or white or just pure grey, where it doesn't matter what you say. For example in Dragon Age: Origins when talking with your companions, there is no "sarcasm" option so you might end up insulting your companions, even if don't want to (The amount of Sarcasm Morrigan uses implies that she understands if i call her a "Heartless Bastard" in a friendly way, since she obviously wants to give that image). If you say/do something, Characters take it as developers want, whatever the motives are. DA:O has good example of choice that is only based on player's sense of morale and doesn't affect any alignment counter and you still have to face the possible consequences: MINOR SPOILERS! In Redcliffe questline, you have to deal with the Demon possessing child named Connor. You have the choice of going and killing Connor himself, and getting rid of the Demon at the same time. Since you have to get rid of the Demon to progress in your World Saving Business, killing connor is for the greater good. Therefore your choice can be considered as Good. There is possibility that you can save the world without doing anything in the Redcliffe (theoretidcally, i'm not sure if it's possible in the game) the decision can be considered as Evil or Chaotic. Another option is to go straight to Fade and deal with the demon itself, without harming Connor. To do this you have to sacrifice one adult to get in the Fade. One could argue that child's life is more important than adult's life, since child has more life left than adult. Therefore this decision can be considered Good or at least better than the first one. In the Fade you can deal with the demon by either killing it or solving the problem by talking. Killing the demon would be considered as lawful, since Demon are evil and their motives are evil. If you decide to make a deal with the Demon and the Demon will leave the child alone for a while so the player can do what he needs to Save the World, the decision can be considered as Good, since killing someone is hardly better than solving problem without killing anyone (and you have to respect the deal Connor and Demon made that led to Demon possessing Connor). Furthermore, if the player entering the Fade feels like he can't kill the Demon, it would be wiser to deal with it non-violently so the player can continue saving the world instead of getting killed. With all these options and different perspectives everything you do can be considered good since the purpose is to save the world but the methods aren't always good and there would be better ways to solve situations than killing everyone. In the end everything you decide is up to player's own sense of morale and since players choices doesn't really matter in the wrong places (like shops not selling items or bounty hunters - why would they do that if you saved their lives) they can do whatever they think fits their character. I'm not too sure about the consequences since i have not yet finished the game, but i think that is a good example of giving player choices while not really punishing for any of them.