Amentep

I couldn't disagree more. Creating a mode where only one save file is possible, and triggered only on exit and loss isn't very complicated. If anything, the existance of Ironman mode will force the developers to more critically ponder the balance and mechanics of their system. Furthermore, I believe it will lead to better scenario, quest, and encounter design--as GOTCHA moments will be passe. "Just reload" or "reload until you discover narrowly defined strategy X" will not be acceptable conclusions. Its funny you should say that, because I find Dark Souls/Demon Souls to be essentially made of GOTCHA moments where you die and reload until you discover narrowly defined strategy X and yet is considered to be one of the best "hardcore" RPG games in recent memory. I have no interest in an Ironman Mode generally speaking. I don't mind harder difficulties even though I rarely move above/below the default difficulty but a mode which will delete my save? No thanks. But that means its inclusion is ultimately irrelevant to me.

I'd argue that it only made sense in PST because the setting is such that belief alters the planes; ergo the distinction of intent is important. In a game like Baldur's Gate where the setting isn't supposed to respond to the character's beliefs (and thus their truth or lies), there is no reason to (IMO) make a distinction between intent and action. EDIT: To further clarify, lets take Wimpy (from Popeye); his classic statement "I'll pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today." When he says it he either means it or he doesn't. If he doesn't pay he either lied or something unknown happened to prevent payment. IMO its harder to have a system that makes a distinction between intent (lie, tell truth but something happened, lie but did it anyhow) than action (money paid back on Tuesday, money not paid back on Tuesday).

I thought the first Ice Age movie was kind of cute in an animated kid's movie kind of way. Wasn't the best kids movie I've seen, but there have been worse kid series IMO.

Yes “it is not junk because of the economy” and it’s only “junk because of the economy”. But objectively a useful sword is not a junk, so calling it a junk will just make the issue more difficult to understand, I don’t even know by now whether we essentially disagree anywhere at all or not at this point. Oh I don't think we entirely disagreed; I think we're really looking at different desired solutions to the same problem. You're looking at realistic inventory options (dropping backpacks in a fight (with I presume encumbrance penalties or extra attack opportunity if the player is surprised and unable to drop the pack quickly), pack animals, etc) I think, and I'm saying the fix needs to come looking at the in-game economy first (but I'm not against other things being added to that). The deep stash could "represent" in the abstracted way games do things a backpack that each of your party member has dropped in a fight (thus making it inaccessible lest you open yourself up to attacks on your back). I guess.

How, then, would you handle a character putting a sword to an NPC's throat and saying "I'll slit your throat! I SWEAR IT!"? Is there no difference between various characters' abilities to say/gesture that convincingly? Should a bluff check only occur at the moment when you don't, in fact, slit that person's throat? The problem with the "There shouldn't be 2 identical options, one marked (lie)" thing is the skill/stat check. If you are knowingly saying something untruthful, you have the same emotional/behavioral cues present when you first lie about it as you do when you lie about it in the future. So if that "Oh, of course I did as you asked!" warrants some kind of believability check, then so should the initial "Yeah, I'll totally do this thing you're asking me to do! In fact, I LOVE coconut!" should, too, if you're lying. Now, if there's not going to be any check-representation to see if you get away with the lie, then there's no reason to have duplicate lines with "(lie)" indicators. However, that doesn't change the necessity in other scenarios/for other reasons. 1) Since the game won't allow you to literally grabbing a persons throat and putting a knife to it, that action has to be part of the text for the bluff. [put sword to throat] I'll cut your neck like a ripe mellon. Or something. 2) So if that "Oh, of course I did as you asked!" warrants some kind of believability check, then so should the initial "Yeah, I'll totally do this thing you're asking me to do! In fact, I LOVE coconut!" should, too, if you're lying. - contextually, however, the game can't assume what you mean to do - even when you tell it that; for example if there is a "Yeah I'll totally do this thing [lie]" option there's nothing in the game to prevent you from then "doing that thing". Why, then, should the game work under the assumption that you lied because you initially said you were lying? What reactivity can the game have to the concept of your lying in the conversation at that point? You've added an unnecessary level of dialogue complication when the truth about whether you lie or not is within your actions not in what you say (later, if confronted with something you agree to do that you haven't, the player should have the ability to bluff their way out of it). I think you're walking down a bad path when you start trying to have your game understand the players motivations rather than their actions.

Frankly I found Dark Souls tedious; my experience was "walk a little way, do a whole lot of grinding so that the enemies of the next area are less likely to one shot kill you, then walk a little way and repeat). Consequently I've never finished it. Later I tried Demon Souls which didn't have the continuous world design and liked it a little better but ultimately I got tired of trying to fight monsters over and over to try and increase my level so I could advance another 5 feet. Both well made games but neither to my taste.

It is junk; its only "not" junk because the economy of the game dictates that the player's sole source of income is what they can loot. Which is the reason why players early on carry everything that isn't nailed down. In reality if you have to add 3 lbs of weight for each longsword you've found and carry it on your person for several days and 100s of miles you're going to quickly decide carrying the sword is a waste of time (even if you swap the sword out, you'd be leaving your own behind). Ergo its junk.

I don’t know, but even if so. What would be the difference between objectives and quests? If objectives are just sub-quests then essentially nothing. An objective would be the things you do to complete the quest. Therefore "get past orc band" could be an objective of a larger quest and the player rewarded for satisfying (killing/sneaking/persuading) the objective.

I thought they said that objectives were what made up quests, not quests themselves. Am I misremembering?

SSI's Phantasie in 1985*. Loved being able to get monster party members. *I'm guessing Atari's Adventure or SwordQuest: Earthworld don't count, really being puzzle games.

it is junk when you look at what it could sale for vs the weight vs how long you have to carry it to sell it vs the quality of your sword and whether you have any use for it. Mind you in a game you don't feel the weight of the junk you're carrying, but that's why encumbrance systems exist, so that people don't carry everything that's nailed down because they either might someday need it or because they can get a shiny copper piece for it. In reality, though, people aren't going to carry 7 swords and 5 full suits of armor for 700 miles to sell. But the problem (IMO) isn't the inventory or the encumbrance system in games that encourage such action, its the economy.

I found BG2 with multi-player tedious as everyone had to wait for people to get done with vendors and forced dialogue and all that every time you hit a town. I understand people enjoyed it, heck I actually enjoyed it myself - but that was because I was playing with friends and got to hang out with same, not because I thought the actual implementation of multi-player in BG2 worked well.

In reality (even if your reality was a fantasy world) looting bodies would take a significant amount of time; most armor would probably be damaged, a lot of the weapons would be too. If you found a lot of significant weapons, how do you carry the swords back to town? You might have a few pack animals (if they weren't killed in the fight) so you might loot a few things to sell, but carrying 30 pounds of weapons over several miles sounds like more trouble than it'd be worth. Frankly you're more likely to pry the large jewels from the chieftain's sword handle than to bother with the sword itself, because it weighs so much vs the amount you could get back. Lets say you do take the time and carry back 10 swords to the nearest town though. Who would you sell the 10 swords to? The blacksmith? Does he have a market for 10 swords? Does he have the money to pay for 10 swords? The local guard? Do they have the money? Do they have the need? In other words you might be able to loot 10 good swords from a defeated group but there's a very possible chance that you wouldn't be able to do anything with them unless you plan to travel from town to town. The problem is that ultimately this is all an abstraction. The reality of this situation is you'd probably take what you immediately needed (to repair or replenish your own supplies) and what was the easiest to carry and sell for the most profit. And leave the rest because carrying 30 pounds of swords 10 miles is going to be a pain in the ass with the real possibility that you can't do squat with them once you arrive. But the game version of the situation is that a lot of players want to min-max what they can get out of every encounter. Which is why we have people doing quests peacefully and then psycho-killing everyone for xp or in this case taking month long trips back and forth between dungeons they've cleaned out because it affords them a lot of spending money and there's no time penalty in most games.

The problem with this scenario - IMO - is that the player actually shouldn't have a choice in this; either the statement that the character is a Cleric with the appropriate background is true or its not. Adding the "lie" tag serves no purpose. Where it might be purposeful is when the dialogue is for future events ("Yes I promise to go on a pilgrimage to Dustham's Proclaimer chapel if you let me into you vault today" essentially Wimpy's "I'll gladly repay you Tuesday if you buy me a hamburger today") The problem with this is if you stated a [lie] dialogue but then actually do it (or conversely state a truthful dialogue and forget to do it) then the lie tag is meaningless. And why its meaningless is because lying is partially your intent and partially your veracity. But a game can't really understand your intent. It can understand your veracity (Player promised to pilgrimage to Dustham; 17 weeks passed, state is now "lie" => player now in poor standing with Clergy unless they make amends or explain why pilgrimage has been delayed). So to my mind the game should be designed - in situations where bluffing or similar come into play - to test the veracity of what the player says rather than their intent.

I wonder why.... I'm crazy? They're already doing it? You can't leave me hanging like that...!

I think that's well and fine, I like more shop choices. I'd argue that there should be some realistic limits to what you can sell back; how much money is on hand at each shop and so on. if a small town blacksmith only sells 3-4 swords a year, why is she going to buy the 57 you got off the orc horde? Where is she getting the money for them? Why would the hatter buy a wand? What would he do with it once he had it? Where would the fletcher store the 10,0000 arrows you looted from the elven warband if she bought them? If the leathersmith buys 50 wolf pelts today, why would he buy another 50 from you a week later? Mind you I still think having to have armor fitted before you can swap it to another character is a fine idea but I seem to recall many thinking it too much; but it forces a lot of choices on the player if there's a limit to the value of armour they can sell back and will cost them to refit it. The player has to think about the inventory (and maybe, just maybe, not be encouraged to carry everything under the sun "just in case").

xp isn't the only way to increase your skills though. You could create a system where there is no levels, and completing quests netted you new traits/perks that modified your base skills (which, as there are no levels, never change) based on how you completed the quest or met objectives. This is just my perspective but I think that we're a little hung up on XP/stats in computer RPGs as opposed to the roleplaying (usually choice & consequences). Your mileage may vary, but I think this is why I tend to be neutral on whether XP for kills or XP for quests is "better". I'm more interested in is the system that we have balanced and works for the game than is it superior/inferior to other models.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth - I thought I was misreading what you stated and wanted to make sure that I had; my memory was that you were okay with three valid paths as long as in making three valid paths fighting wasn't made invalid (the fear about cost in expenditures in fighting vs rewards). So the question was asked for clarity on my part not to accuse you of anything (sorry if it came out like that). Right, but I'd argue the poor implementation of combat made the xp reward a terrible motivation to engage in combat if it could be avoided (in this case, combat was unattractive so the xp reward didn't outweigh the tedium for me).

Of course for me - and I'm willing to try this and see if its fun - the bigger problem is the limitations with in game economy that allows the player (or encourages the player) to sell every single item they find in a dungeon. But this may be far to complex an issue to address in games currently.

Um...there's a lot of other systems than awarding XP; completing sidequests could still net you something that would be of worth to your character (titles, reputation, guild/faction status) without giving you a +1 to hit because you leveled. Not saying that's what I want, but I could see it being done.

I'm personally torn on the inventory system to be honest; weightless systems are okay, but - even understanding the system is an abstraction - they tend to favor trading up to more and more ridiculous things because they're the most value. Your fighter is carrying their equipment and some healing potions and maybe a situational weapon or two... ...and then the dining room table and chairs from the estate of Lord Pompusarse because it'll fetch the most money. Inventory is an odd beast and I think personally I favor ones that are more "realistic" system than abstract. I'd argue that you're actually not really making a choice beyond situational choices. Of course, arguably, this could be seen as aligning the choice a fighter makes (what armor, weapon, skill talents) to equip for an encounter more comparable to the choices a magic user would have (what armor, spells, spell talents).

Are you now arguing that instead of the problem being the possibility that sneaking and being diplomatic could become superior pathways to fighting that the problem is that fighting is no longer the superior pathway? Planescape: Torment was heavily based on combat? Combat was the worst thing about it and usually just tedium between the good bits. That said I'd love another Icewind Dale game. Unfortunately I'd imagine the BG and PST fans would be up in arms about that...

Unless, you know, the game he played when he was small was Planescape: Torment which had no co-op play. And was an IE game. And excepting the fact that, very early on in the Kickstarter campaign, they said they weren't looking at making a multi-player game. And despite it being an option, I'd argue Baldur's Gate didn't really support co-op either, since it was such a crappy multi-player experience - but YMMV.

I didn't expect PE would have any similarities with any D&D other than being "fantasy". My expectation of PE was not defined within a framework of what was (or wasn't) in D&D or really in the IE games themselves; maybe I'm just not imaginative enough, but I couldn't see a game being able to be both Planescape: Torment AND Icewind Dale at the same time.

Okay, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here anymore. But I thought Neeshka was funny (which is why I usually took her along in NWN2...)