[Something I really didn't like in KotOR2, that I hope Obsidian doesn't repeat.]

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but on the other hand if you wanted to, you couldn't create a back-story that had you leaving your girlfriend in the Vault

Sure you could. You just weren't ever given the opportunity to express that sorrow, but that doesn't mean the sorrow isn't there.

I think the issue is really that those kind of things seem to work better when they are set upfront (you are the courier) rather than later (I did what?)

That's absolutely true. I'd rather they weren't there at all (or their use was limited), but if they must exist the player needs to know about them during character creation.

Mind you I saw the Exile reveal as an attempt to mirro the reveal from KotOR without resorting to telling the exact same story, too.

Regardless of what it was trying to do, it broke roleplaying.

[Symmetrical Combat Mechanics]

The rules that govern the PC and his companions should be fundamentally the same rules that govern every other being in the game (I'll allow exceptions for gods). The PC shouldn't be immune to stun abilities while still being able to stun his enemies. The PC shouldn't hit vastly harder than his enemies do. The PC should not have vastly fewer hit points than his enemies do. Friendly fire should be equally deadly for all sides.

 

Asymmetrical combat mechanics reached a laughable level with DA2, and that needs to be reversed. Eternity is just the place to do that.

[Death]

BioWare was right when they said that the availability ot resurrection should have wide-reaching social effects. This is the justification they offered for why Dragon Age didn't have any resurrection magic in it, and that was a good decision.

 

But that is not a good reason to abandon perma-death. Death can be made less-likely through an extensive injury system, but if someone is dead (and what constitutes death should be well established by the combat mechanics) then he should be dead.

 

I'd also like to see the possibility of the PC dying and the party carrying on without him. No one character should be more important than the group in a party-based game.

[Something I really didn't like in KotOR2, that I hope Obsidian doesn't repeat.]

 

The point of PST was to find your past so arguably the whole story was getting to know the man I was controlling.

TNO didn't know his past either, so whatever sort of man he was had nothing to do with his past.

FO1 and 2 I could only create a background as far as the parameters of the game (start in a vault, start in a tribe) would let me.

But within those parameters, you could do whatever you wanted. The game didn't come back later and tell you about the girlfriend you'd left behind in the vault, and about how much you missed her. That would have been appalling.

 

I suppose I'm hoping that the approach they used in KotOR2 was a one-off experiment.

[Something I really didn't like in KotOR2, that I hope Obsidian doesn't repeat.]

You shouldn't have to "get to know" the man your controlling. You created him. You should know everything about his mind from the moment you click "Done" at the end of character creation.

[1 PC plus companions, or create multiple characters (plus companions?)]

 

but I'm fairly certain that Obsidian has stated that they are going the "make your main PC, recruit your companions" route.

I'm getting that impression, but that should still leave open the option to create 2 or 3 (or 6) characters and then recruit companions to fill any gaps.

 

I'm just looking for any way to have the one player-created PC not be forced to act as party leader and party spokesperson.

[1 PC plus companions, or create multiple characters (plus companions?)]

The question of multiple npc's will also mesh into whether they're npc's who only have their own story, or whether they're actually tied into the main plot.

 

We want npc's to have depth and not just be autonomatons that follow along to shoot, stab, or throw fireballs at thing.

If you create random characters to fill out the party, they won't really get any depth or storyline beyond what you imagine. That's the major downside to that.

I continue to insist that whatever story the developers write is always just flavour text that fleshes out the setting. The story that matters is the one the player creates through his roleplaying choices.

 

This is the authored narrative vs. emergent narrative debate, and I'm staunchly on the side of the emergent narrative.

[Something I really didn't like in KotOR2, that I hope Obsidian doesn't repeat.]

A big part of KotOR2's narrative involved revealing the Exile's past to the player. The Exile wasn't ignorant of his past, but the player was.

 

That's a huge problem.

 

Revealing the PC's past to the player during play worked in KotOR and Torment because the PC was just as ignorant of his past as the player was, so these revelations could be done entirely in-character, and nothing learned there rendered previously made decisions incoherent.

 

But in KotOR2, the player is denied information that should have informed the Exile's reactions to certain characters or events (Atris seems the most obvious).

 

Roleplaying is, I think, a process that relies on perceiving the world through the eyes of your character, not through your own. But if the player isn't given relevant information that his character does possess, the player isn't able to adopt his character's point of view.

 

For this reason, I'm a big fan of the blank slate character. Let us populate the mind of our PC. Let us have exhaustive knowledge of his background (to the extent that he possesses that knowledge). If there are gaps, let us fill those in ourselves, and don't have the game contradict us later.

 

I think KotOR, NWN, and NWN2 all did this well. Fallout and Fallout 2 did this well. Torment is perhaps the best game ever at this. But KotOR2's narrative pulled the rug out from under the player in terms of his design of the Exile's personality.

[1 PC plus companions, or create multiple characters (plus companions?)]

If they going with the single player-created PC, I implore them to let us use any party member as party spokesperson, just as BG and BG2 allowed (in BG the option was even documented, so we know it was intentional - in BG2 it appears to have been an accident).

[1 PC plus companions, or create multiple characters (plus companions?)]

The traditional approach in modern CRPGs is to have the player create a single character and then collect companions along the way.

 

But some do it differently. Icewind Dale. Storm of Zehir. Wizardry 8. And even BG and BG2 using multiplayer mode. These games allowed us to create the entire party, or multiple characters who together collected yet more companions.

 

I would favour at least the option to create more than one character (and so far, that's what I'm expecting Eternity to offer). After all, it's a party-based game. The entire party is effectively made up of player characters - we just don't necessarily create all of them ourselves. There is, therefore, no reason to limit us to just one player-created character.

 

Also, this would then virtually assure another feature I value, which is the ability to use any party member as party spokesperson. I loathe how most newer games force us to use the player-created PC as party spokesperson, even if there's someone better suited to the job available.

 

We can assign combat roles within the party unconstrained by which character is player-created. We should be able to assign non-combat roles similarly.

 

Thoughts? Should we be allowed to have more than one player-created character in the party?

[Dialogues, should they be tied to your stats?]

I favour tying it to skill, but nly if we can use any party member as party spokesperson.

 

The Infinity Engine games allowed for that (though I recently had to remind BioWare of that - even the guys who wrote BG2 appearred unaware that characters other than the Bhaalspawn could do the talking), and I hope Eternity will as well.

[DS3's "new" combat system.]

The trouble is that as far as I can see, the only truly unique appeal the DS1/2 systems had (different not only from DS3 but BG/NWN/etc) is that it was, well, easy and unpunishing. Regeneration. Auto-attacking options. Generally very easy encounters. That's not necessarily 'bad' - but my point is that DS1/2 were unusually geared towards this kind of laid back gameplay, to the point that some people still reference it as a game that plays itself.

And while DS1 could be played like that, it could also be played to be more challenging. Playing a jack-of-all-Trades character made teh combat extremely difficult, as the encouters grew more powerful far more quickly than you did. Sacrificing power for versatility - somethng I think all games should offer - was entirely possible in DS1

 

If DS1 has a problem here, it's that versatility wasn't actually useful, so a versatile build was just a gimped build.

 

But you're right that DS1 was laid-back, and that the combat did tend to play itself. That was, I think, DS1's best feature.

I think it's difficult to expect that from DS3, especially when you want the game to be more fast-paced, actiony and when you put an even bigger focus on combat.

I certainly don't want that.

Even if you were happy with DS1/2, it's a lot more boring / tedious if you only have one character, a smaller selection of abilities and most of the time you're fighting rather than talking.

DS1 with just one character worked pretty well, actually, because a smaller party gained XP faster and thus had stronger members.

 

The game you describe, though, sounds more like NWN, which also had a sort of click-and-watch combat system, but the player only controlled one character.

 

And that was also a good game, so I don't really see the problem.

Every game sets its particular kind of 'pace'.

For all the newer games, that paces appears to be "way too fast".

The good part seems to be that DS3 has made sure that Easy mode is really very easy, and when you make mistakes you still have time to bounce back, and you have the time to try a few different things and see what you should do against said boss. Retreating, holing up in a corner and waiting for mana regen isn't the only way to play strategically - it's much more fun to be dodging the boss attacks, maybe take a few hits, but from those hits learn what you should and shouldn't do, without dying multiple times. And then they've put in the hardcore difficulty for people who do like a challenge (which is different from 'masochist' enjoyment: you can't really condemn people who enjoy difficult games as 'crazy' - that would be the same as me simply saying DS1 is only for idiots and you should learn to game. Point is that there are different types of gamers that want different things.)

Ideally, I want games without action-combat. I'd like combat to be stat-driven, and dice-driven, and have me issue all my orders while the game is paused.

Now, in the end, DS3 is nearly complete and it is what it is. So leaving aside whether it should have been designed more like DS1/2 to start with, I don't think the issue here is one of difficulty, or one of punishing / not punshing the player. I think the main difference will be one of pacing. And the good news for you, I suppose, is that from watching gameplay trailers (and there is speciffically one out there that we know is on Easy difficulty), you really dont have to jump and roll around like a maniac in order to not die. There's plenty of time and HP room to take a few hits, learn what works/not, make a couple of mistakes, and pick things up along the way then apply those solutions.

That's good news. Games with action combat tend to move so quickly that there's no time for players to experiment in a given encounter, because either the difficulty is too high and you die, or you don't die but everything else does so the combat is already over before you've learned anything.

[PC control scheme made me lose interest in the game]

this basically means that the game will probably feel like an action game on the consoles while it will feel like a strategy game on the PC .

In my book, that's good news. Anything that brings the gameplay closer to DS1 is a step in the right direction (I think even DS2 screwed it up).

[Easy question]

Eh, personally I thought the single player in DS 1 and 2 wasn't that great at all... The multiplayer and active modding community was what made the game fun. =) Now that neither exists much anymore, it seems like it would be boring to play those old games again (unless you can talk friends into playing it with you, heh).

I have DS 1 installed right now. It's a terrific game, and I play through it from time to time. I just wish there were more games like it.

[Easy question]

i can assume the keyboard option will be kinda like marvel ultimated alliance. at least i really really hope there is no mouse pointed or cursor in the game. the consoles dont need it and i see no reason why the keyboard would. maybe it's just that the WASD keys move the character and other keys are for attacks. there is even no need for a mouse, if u ask me. maybe to rotate the camera but this is not a 3rd person game like AC or Fable. the camera looks static and automatic most of the time so i am not sure we will need a mouse.

if this becomes a point and click method i am not getting the game at all.

The "Click-and-Watch" mechanic in the original Dungeon Siege is the best ARPG combat I've ever played.

[Easy question]

Like WUE said, we don't know how the control scheme works on PC. But it seems very doubtful that there'd be an auto-attack system (like NWN2 or what have you) given how based the game seems to be around action and movement. It will require you to be active from moment to moment, not a more tactical type of gameplay where you issue orders.

The original Dungeon Siege was far from tactical, but it was also not a Diablo-style click-fest.

 

I'd say Dungeon Siege's combat was mostly based around character-bulding (you'd design and equip the characters, and then they would fight based on that).

[Easy question]

It's more similar to something like the console Baldur's Gate games, if that's of any help.

No, that tells me nothing.

there's certainly no such thing as an auto-attack.

So the the characters don't ever just keep doing what you've told them to do without your continued input?

[Easy question]

I haven't followed this game's development at all, but I am a big fan of the original Dungeon Siege.

 

What is DS3's basic combat mechanic? Is it click-to-attack like Diablo, or is it target selection followed by auto-attack like Dungeon Siege?

 

I have a strong preference for one over the other, but it will be easier to get a straight answer if I don't mention which I prefer.

 

Thanks.

[And so I have a quick question]

It was Atari's choice. Not Obsidian's or BIO's. If I were BIO, I would have told Atari no since BIO pretty much gets niothing out of the relationship anyways.

And I suspect EA isn't terribly pleased with the situation, either.

[Dungeon Siege was terrific, but DS2 was dreadful.]

Regardless of whether there's a party, it's the need for constant inputs I'd like to avoid. Needing to select a new target every 2 seconds isn't fun. Having to click to swing my sword or fire a spell (or even hold down a button to keep doing it) isn't fun.

 

If the enemies don't routinely fall in 1-2 blows, then selecting a new one isn't a big deal. But if I'm one-shotting everything (as was often the case in Dungeon Siege, particularly early in the game) I'd like my character not to stand there like an idiot in-between foes.

[Dungeon Siege was terrific, but DS2 was dreadful.]

It's the need for constant clicking, when the character should be able to just keep doing what I had him doing, that annoys me.

 

This is why I can't stand Diablo, and couldn't play The Witcher (that combat system was frightful).

 

I do not mind at all having to identify a target for my characters, but assuming it's an action game rather than a detailed tactical game (more like Diablo and less like Dragon Age), then the party members will ostensibly be able to select a target themselves.

 

The question then becomes whether we can let the AI run all the characters. Dragon Age actually had a mod (made by BioWare - they'd use it for testing) that allowed you to leave the tactics on for all of the characters at once (effectively unselecting everyone).

 

Dungeon Siege allowed the focus of gameplay to be on building an effective party rather than getting viscerally involved in the combat.

[Dungeon Siege was terrific, but DS2 was dreadful.]

Which one will DS3 resemble (if either)?

 

I really enjoyed the core gameplay in Dungeon Siege. You design your character, select your party members, ansd they fight according to their abilities, with you having the option to give them greater direction. but if the player does nothing, the characters (all of them, even the main PC) still engage in combat on their own based on their variouos settings (willingness to engage and pursue and whatnot).

 

DS2 did nothing of the sort. DS2 adopted a much more Diablo-style of combat that required constant input, and the selected character would never do anything at all without direction.

 

Dungeon Siege's combat was rather derisively referred to as "click-and-watch". And I loved it.

 

Assuming DS3 resembles its predecessors at all, will the Dungeon Siege gameplay style be available to players?

[Don't force me to play a jedi]

KotOR could have solved most of this problem by allowing advancement in your original class after going to Dantooine. If you liked being a Soldier, you could keep being a Soldier and let your force sensitivity stagnate. But we didn't get that option.

 

KotOR2 could easily keep exactly the same exiled Jedi storyline and just allow more diverse character advancement. Let us take non-Jedi classes, even at the start.

[Just say 'no' to Johnny Quest villains!]

BioWare does tend to have a very flat representation of evil, particularly in the options available to the player. Being evil generally involves being mean for no other reason than to hurt people. That can happen, but to make it the only option makes evil synonymous with sadism, and evil is much more broad than that.

 

I do not think, however, that Star Wars always presents that same flat evil. Darth Vader had purpose behind his cruelty. He wasn't being cruel just because he liked hurting people - there was an overarching motive... Order. He even mentions that to Luke - bringing order to the galaxy. Darth Vader clearly sought totalitarian rule of the galaxy, but he wanted to rule an orderly galaxy, and order is arguably a benefit to some people. Even the destruction of Alderaan doesn't appear to be strict sadism. We know nothing about Alderaan (except the words of Leia, who lies to Vader with every word she speaks), so it could be a viable military target. At the very least, the royal house actively harbours rebels.