What do you wish not to see in PE

[RosesandAshes]

I don't want bandits or animals to be enemies by default. Animals normally fear humans and try to avoid them, not mindlessly attack. And why should bandits attack everyone on sight, especially a group of well-armed adventurers? That's just suicidal.

 

I'd like to see aggressive enemies run away from you if you come back at a higher level. "That's right, you stupid bear! Try killing me now with your puny little bear paws!"

 

As for bandits, why can't characters enlist their help and get them to steal stuff for them/guard their player house/whatever?

[Razorsthreej]

Railroaded main story

[anek]

Wolves. I would love to NOT see wolves.

 

You better not solo through IWD2 then.

 

In that game, strength and numbers of no-name enemies scale with the average character level of your party members (completely disregarding the number of party members).

So if you're soloing, you'll have reached a pretty high level by the end of chapter 2, and you'll have the pleasure of being surprised by massive packs of ferocious dire wolves in the first two maps of chapter 3.

[mikayel]

Yes, those are Arya Stark's Dire Wolf's pack.

 

If we're talking customization, I'll take ToEE style customization any day. As for spending time in a face molding mini game like Mass Effect.

 

... No.

[Data4]

Factions (if present) that co-exist with one another. What I mean is I would like to see choices matter. If you pick A, then some things available from picking B no longer become available. I want to see groups opposing one another rather than living in a vaccum. Yes, this would mean cutting off, say, 30% of the game during any given playthrough, but that's the wrong way to look at it. If the game is designed to take appx X amount of hours to finish, but there is Y amount of content to account for the various pathways through the game, it still means that a single game will still only take X amount of hours. Want to see all the Y content? Start a new game and make different choices. Want it all at the same time? Try www.bethsoft.com

Edited September 29, 2012 by Data4

[Eldrig]

Voiced characters

References to the real world in the game (even easter eggs I'm a little iffy about) A self referential world is paramount to establishing a dedicated fan base.

I want them to not shy away from mature content in the game, but to be realistic and tasteful.

Importantly, I really REALLY don't ever want to see the Fable-esque moral choices in another game. They are just rediculous in that your only 2 choices are almost without fail always between Extreme evil and extreme good, whereas I'm sure we can all, as mature individuals, agree that morally grey choices are superior and more realistic.

 

Also, hooray first post!

Edited September 29, 2012 by Eldrig

[Giantevilhead]

Obvious red shirts - Of course there has to be expendable characters in a game like this but it shouldn't be obvious. There shouldn't be any situations where you just know that a character is going to die to show how serious the situation is or how evil the bad guy is.

 

Unprepared NPC's - You cast buffs on your characters and have them drink potions before combat, NPC's, both allies and enemies, should do the same.

 

Inappropriate reactions from NPC's - NPC's should not always treat your characters like they're level 1 adventurers. How others interact with the PC should depend on their reputation and their level. When the PC has reached epic levels and is equipped with godly weapons and armor, NPC's should treat the PC with more respect and maybe even awe. Low level bandits should not be stupid enough to try to rob a high level PC. If your PC is evil and has a reputation for being ruthless and cruel, NPC's should not just stand there and talk with you like nothing's wrong, they should cower in fear, hide in their homes, and flee for their lives.

[barmaglo]

No anime style armor

No Level scaling

No "You are the chosen one!", "Youre are our hope", "Only you can save us"

No mini-games. Optional ones are fine (pazaak game in KotOR, as an example), but no required ones.

No re-spec

No linearity, give me options.

No Numeric quest (10 wolf skin, 4 part of items etc.)

No children I can't kill

No Guns (these weapons are not suited to fantasy)

No forced companion to complete a quest

No obvious consequences, Surprise me, I do not want to know all the consequences of the decisions, before I select one.

[japol]

I wouldn't like to see a too restrictive NPC time schedule.

Meaning a system like the one in The Witcher,where in most of the quests you could find an Npc

on a certain spot only at a certain hour and you could also solve many quests at a certain hour of the day too.

Now combining these with the meditation mechanic i.e. having to find a fire to rest,resulted in extensive back and forth

for me and i just hated it to the point of eventually quitting.

[Loranc]

A bad ending, I can't even begin to name off the amount of bad endings that video games have brought us. The most recent being Mass Effect 3, it would be nice to have a 'long' ending, that wraps everything up smoothly. There's nothing worse than playing an amazing game, just to have the entire experience destroyed by a bad ending.

[GammaHamster]

 

No Guns (these weapons are not suited to fantasy)

 

Games Workshop disagrees.

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2350270a_60030202004_EmpireBook01_873x627.jpg

[metiman]

Finally, and most importantly, I don't want the developers to release this game before they think they have made it as perfect as they think it can be. They are pouring their heart and soul into this, and PE could quite possibly their greatest release ever. I want them to realise their, and our dream, as fully as is possible, and if that means keeping it as a dream for longer because they don't cut corners or compromise details, then so be it.

 

Are you going to pay their salaries when they have run out of money?

[Loranc]

Their kickstart goal was 1.1 million they will more than double that amount, there's no reason they should run out of money with smart budgeting. On the other hand, asking for a perfect game is silly. Beta tests are never enough and most problems, though they are small and most people don't notice them, don't show up until a broader range of people play the game. But I do understand your fear of a poor release, looking back. Alpha protocol was one of the buggiest games obsidian ever had their hands in, but that was the whole reason for the kickstarter in the first place. To not be pressured into early releases, having to compromise, or being forced to add elements into the game that they didn't necessarily want in the first place. I guess what I'm saying is, these guys are as big of gamers as we are, and they will do their best.

[Plini_the_Youngest]

Are you going to pay their salaries when they have run out of money?

 

I wasn't aware they're in this for the salary. If they have to put this on hold because they haven't quite got it exactly as they want it, I will still be happy, as I know that when it is finally released it will be worth the wait. As Loranc points out, though, kickstarter alone has more than doubled their initial budget. I think funding (hopefully) won't be too much of a problem; it seems as if they have a very realistic planning team!

[metiman]

I believe they do expect to be paid for their work. If all the artists and programmers and designers etc were willing to do this stuff for free they wouldn't need a kickstarter. The project might also take 10 years or never instead of 1.5 - 2. Putting the project on hold wouldn't solve anything. When it starts up again people are still going to want to be paid for their work. Also the fact that they've raised more money than the absolute minimum to do the project doesn't matter that much if they use all of it. It's not like they are just going to spend 1.1 million and save the rest in case it's needed. They are talking about larger worlds, more features and essentially more man-hours with greater funding levels. Maybe they'll be willing to do some bug fixes after the money runs out, but I wouldn't expect them to keep working on the game until they feel it is "perfect".

[GhostofAnakin]

Their kickstart goal was 1.1 million they will more than double that amount, there's no reason they should run out of money with smart budgeting.

 

The thing is with each stretch goal they've achieved, they're adding features. So it's not quite as simple as them making the same game they were going to make at $1.1 million, but with twice the funds now available to do it.

[Dianjabla]

Hmmm. Reminds me of the fable of the father and his son going to sell their donkey. On the way into town the boy got tired so the father put him on the donkey. Then they passed a group of old men who said "For shame, the young show no respect for their elders, letting them walk while they ride." So the boy got off and let his father ride. Then they passed a group of ladies who declared "Some men are not fit to be fathers, riding while their poor child walks." So they both got on & rode the donkey. They then passed a group of children sitting beside a bridge who cried out "That poor donkey has to carry them both! They should carry it!" So they both got off the donkey & tried to lift it up. The poor donkey was terrified and kicked them both making them drop it over the side into the river and it swam away.

 

That said, things I'd like not to see

 

- project eternity made by committee or designed from forum polls

- over the top combat animations as though the character was a squirrel on speed. (Haste spells are another matter)

- being the chosen one

- being a 1st level nobody being sent off to solve some huge crisis, when the people in charge are much more capable of it & have much better employees to do this instead

- having to save the world. At least, not directly. IWD this was the whole point. BG1&2 it was more personal, the fact you saved large portions of the world through your actions was almost incidental. PST was all about what's going on with me?

- unrelatable villains who're only in it for world domination. OK, so Sarevok & Irenicus sort of were, but you could relate a lot better than say, reapers or dark spawn or the legion...

 

Hypocritical much? I know.

 

[Stun]

I think perma-death can really add to a game, it adds physical and even psychological consequences for failures. It was one of the many many things I really loved about X-COM. I'd wind up getting really attached to my troops and when one of them died it really hit me hard psychologically, not to mention the tactical loss on the battlefield. Having to deal with loss and rethink tactics because you simply don't have certain party members any more adds another layer to the game. I know this isn't for everyone which is why it should be an option that can be turned on and off.

Yep. I have no idea why just about every gaming company has collectively decided to pretty much scrap perma-death from games. There are 2 types of gamers in the world. Those who want perma-death, and those who simply reload when a battle turns fatal. So...OK, Am I missing something, here? These two types aren't mutually exclusive. A perma-death system effectively satisfies both groups.

 

Oh that's right. I forgot. There's a 3rd group. The Gaming companies themselves (who shall remain nameless) who love to tie your companions directly to the contrived main plots of their games. These companies don't want perma-death. Because if one of your companions suffers perma-death, the plot gets broken. So the solution (their idea of a solution) is to make combat non-deadly....like Golf, or some other non-deadly sport -- instead of doing what they should be doing, Which is: not writing stories where everyone in the player's party is friggin plot critical in the first place.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Stun

[metiman]

I don't recall ever playing a computer game with permadeath. Zork perhaps? I can't remember what happens when your lamp goes out and you do actually get eaten by a grue. Presumably start over from the beginning. And consoles have never really had save games I suppose. The only console games I've played were on the Atari 2600. I never actually owned one, but some of my friends did. None of those games had saves. If you died that was it. You started over from the beginning. I wonder at what point all that checkpoint save business started. it wasn't until my Atari 400 that I began to play games sophisticated enough to allow you to save the game state. I guess some people have never liked the idea of save games. I would never have become a gamer without them. Certainly no long games like RPGs. Much too repetitive and frustrating.

[Stun]

Well, in the BG and IWD games, your companions can be chunked. They die and their portraits flat out disappear, so you can't even ressurect them. And of course, if your main character dies, the game IS over. You must reload from a previous save if you wish to continue.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Stun

[metiman]

And what is the alternative to that?

[Stun]

A crappy hand-holding system where Finger of Death, Disintigrate, and Slay Living = False advertising. A silly, non-believable system where Bandits, thugs, and murderers say they're gonna kill you, but suddenly display mercy, by just knocking you out. A laughable system where hungry savage beasts with big sharp teeth don't eat you. They just knock you unconscious....for sport.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Stun

[AlphaShard]

All I ask is for developer to not take this kind of threads too seriously. I'm facepalming here over and over again for some of these requests. If they listened to all of you, soon they would have some 1988 text-RPG in their hands.:D Nostalgia is ok, but this has to be updated to todays standards. Now it seems you are forbidding everything that possibly could make gameplay even a little bit smoother and less painful.

 

Clumsy user interface and unforgiving gameplay were not what made Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment great to me. In many ways they could have been lot better and some are requesting those same "not so good" features to return in this game. No thanks.

 

Yes, most are very reasonable, but for example things like semi-permanent companion death are just creating unnecessary reloading, or if you don't want to do that then you just walk to nearest priest and after formal fee, your companion is revived anyway. Some might say this is immersion. I would say it's just waste of time. Deaths should be made unwanted in some other way and (I know some won't like this) I think DA:O did great job by making revived characters "wounded" until you could cure them.

 

Also I think the old "spell and ability memorizing" system is outdated. It's just another version of cooldown mechanic. In old RPGs you had to sleep to memorize spells, which again is waste of time because all you need to do is go to nearest tavern or other place where you can rest and *poof*, spells are again usable. Nowdays you just have to wait certain time until you are going to be able to use the spell again. Just more streamlined version of the old system without unnecessary running around. I know in some dungeons you couldn't rest and so you had to think carefully your use of spells and abilities, but they can be made hard in so many other and IMO better ways that it's not really worth it.

 

There is a difference between "clumsy" and what I would say is instead "out of style."

 

Out of date implies inferior to new... and when it comes to most of the requests, they are matters of taste and opinion - not a quantifiable "inferior or superior" in the sense of game design advancement or technology.

 

Wanting CGA graphics instead of at least XGA - that's clearly inferior, out-dated tech.

 

Wanting text instead of voice - that's not "out dated", it's a matter of choice.

 

Characters being unkillable existed in early video games, it's not a new phenomenon. So the difference between companions being invulnerable or able to suffer death is a game design choice, or a player's preference, not inferior or superior. It may be out of style, but it's not out dated.

 

I don't want spell memorization, but it's not inherently inferior or out-dated... it's a matter or opinion or taste if it is good or bad.

 

Just my two cents on this.

 

How is the Baldur's Gate interface Clumsy?

[elenuial]

You know what I would like to not see?

 

Elves. Effing elves.

[molarBear]

stereotypical PCs like these:

 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/projects/289461/posts/315214/image-162519-full.jpg?1348534324

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/projects/289461/posts/317536/image-163777-full.jpg?1348795914