Q&A - Ask a question, Get an answer

YouTube · Post by **BasiliskWrangler** » May 7th, 2007, 5:18 pm

Unfortunately, that is the biggest drawback of this particular old-school romp...yes, you have to play a male human character. It is just part of the storyline which was written within a certain scope to introduce this gameworld.

Book II, we promise, adds in party-play and alternate character races and genders as the storyline expands and grows.

Awanya · Post by **Awanya** » May 7th, 2007, 5:22 pm

A pity. I guess I'll just wait for the sequel then.

Rune_74 · Post by **Rune_74** » May 7th, 2007, 5:46 pm

Well you could dress him in pink and pretend he is a girl....its an option...sad to think the sex o a character will make you not want to play a game....admittedly there have not been many games with a female lead but there are a few (titles of which slip my mind) I still played them an enjoyed them.

Awanya · Post by **Awanya** » May 7th, 2007, 6:31 pm

I know it is kind of silly thing to raise as a mandatory guestion, but it is a matter of principles, really. I've boycotted RPG's that dont let you pick your gender since Ultima VIII: Pagan, which pissed me off because of that. But of course it was a horrible mockery of it's predecessors in other ways too.

I havent missed too many games because of that. Planescape: Torment and Gothic trilogy make me feel little bit sorry for that. Ultima IX does not. Two Worlds will have a premade protagonist too, but it looks so much like Oblivion-clone that even looking at the screenshots makes me feel sick.

But even when the gender can be picked, I still hate games with premade protagonists. They just feel more like adventure games instead of roleplaying games, and I have never been a friend of those.

YouTube · Post by **BasiliskWrangler** » May 7th, 2007, 7:44 pm

Understandable! I do hope you at least download the demo and give it a spin even if you don't purchase a copy.

gragnak · Post by **gragnak** » May 8th, 2007, 2:27 am

DEMO?! (He jumps up with sprited eyes)
Where?! Who?! When?!
Ah aaaaaah! I hear you! You pronounced the word DEMO! Or was it DEMON?
No. I'm sure. It was DEMO.

Are you planning to release it soon?

YouTube · Post by **BasiliskWrangler** » May 8th, 2007, 3:03 am

Same day as the full version.

gragnak · Post by **gragnak** » May 8th, 2007, 3:13 am

........ sob..... ok.
We have still to wait a lot.

Thanks anyway.
Good work.

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » May 8th, 2007, 12:32 pm

As much as I like the freedom to create a character in terms of race and gender and such, it's far more important to me to be able to role-play well in the game, to have myriad options in terms of how you advance rather than a more on-the-rails approach that many RPGs, with full character creation freedom, tend to have.

Granted the two are by no means mutually exclusive.

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » May 8th, 2007, 1:49 pm

Oh!

Not sure what made me remember to ask this, probably the Fallout discussion and my above comment, and perhaps I have already brought it up but I don't think I have...

Will we be able to finish this game without having to resort to "uber" items, like big weapons and armour? In Fallout 1 it bugged the heck out of me that you were more or less forced to wear the power armour for the final segments of the game, as without it you'd be pretty much screwed (I'm sure it's possible to win by not using it, and I'm sure someone out there will claim to have beat the game wearing nothing but underwear and using a rusty knife).
I've never liked having to resort to powerful items on my characters. If I'm playing a quick-talking rogue who's handy with a dagger and crossbow and is comfortable in light armour (for example) I don't want to have to strap on the full armour suit and pick up the big sword or whatever to finish the game. I want to be able to use the skills I've built up over the course of the game to overcome obstacles.
I've played too many games that allow you to make your own character of any style and allow those choices to carry you through, only to hit end-game where if you're not a combat monster or super-powerful mage or whatever, you've no hope in victory.
So, will Eschalon cater to my choices in character building, and let me use those choices to "win"?

YouTube · Post by **BasiliskWrangler** » May 8th, 2007, 2:41 pm

The short answer is yes.

The longer answer is more complicated because we have to get into the fundamentals of role-playing games in general. That is, in general, the classic RPG is supposed to be a journey for your character to embark on where along the way he/she grows in skill and equipment along a path of your design.

If you want to finish the game with an uber Rogue who has an assortment of mad skills and just uses light leather armor and a common dagger, you should be able to.

Your question then seems to suggest you would like an option to play without having to kill everything. This has been answered before in that you could get pretty far without killing anything, but combat is a great source of XP so you'll develop slower without it. There are also a few baddies in the game that are part of the storyline, so conflict to some extent is inevitable.

For example, you say:

I've played too many games that allow you to make your own character of any style and allow those choices to carry you through, only to hit end-game where if you're not a combat monster or super-powerful mage or whatever, you've no hope in victory.

Well, if you make an uber burglar Rogue who has every single skill point stuffed into "Lock Picking" then you probably aren't going to be able to win the game with this guy, but you could still run around the game world and unlock every door and chest you find. The strategy of a good RPG tends to form around the idea that in order to win the game you need the overall best character possible, whether you design a Fighter, Mage, Rouge or whatever.

I am a fan of micromanaging my character's skills and attributes to get the most out of him. When I play an RPG, I like to think that I've made a character that "outsmarts" the system and is better than the designers had anticipated. Eschalon hopefully embodies and encourages this type of play style.

Rune_74 · Post by **Rune_74** » May 8th, 2007, 5:53 pm

I think any rpg can be just about beaten with the character you make, the difference I see is that it will be harder with different types which is generally to be expected no matter if it is pen and paper or computer.

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » May 8th, 2007, 7:13 pm

BasiliskWrangler wrote: I am a fan of micromanaging my character's skills and attributes to get the most out of him. When I play an RPG, I like to think that I've made a character that "outsmarts" the system and is better than the designers had anticipated. Eschalon hopefully embodies and encourages this type of play style.

Right.. My basic point of question essentially boils down to, I guess, being able to finish the game successfully without an optimised character. From what I've read I suspect the answer is yes, this is possible. The dialogue we've seen (the latest screenshot) and accompanying news article certainly indicates the multiple paths to success based on your strengths rather than being presented with one way to do it.
On a basic level my concern is that I'd be able to play through the game with a talky thief, only to be faced with some big combat ending which I wouldn't have a hope of winning because I didn't build my guy that way throughout the game. Or that I'd have to toss aside all my skills in favour of suiting up in some big piece of armour to defeat the baddy, that sort of thing.

Ultimately, when that happens it sours the overall game experience, but when you can emerge victorious because you played your strengths well, it's so very satisfying.

YouTube · Post by **BasiliskWrangler** » May 8th, 2007, 7:56 pm

I see what you're saying. I think that is the holy grail of any RPG: allowing everyone to truly roleplay exactly how they want to. While we can do our best to try give as many options as possible, it's just not always realistic to allow 6 different solutions to every single quest or encounter.

Our other goal we have which we have to remind everyone (even ourselves) from time to time is that we really, truly want to recreate an old-school roleplaying experience. That means that we aren't trying to create a completely unique RPG, just a really fun one.

Gallifrey · Post by **Gallifrey** » May 9th, 2007, 6:32 am

BasiliskWrangler wrote:I see what you're saying. I think that is the holy grail of any RPG: allowing everyone to truly roleplay exactly how they want to. While we can do our best to try give as many options as possible, it's just not always realistic to allow 6 different solutions to every single quest or encounter.

No, of course not, ideal as it would be. I don't think AI technology has reached that point yet, though oddly enough it seems it was the older RPGs that allowed for more options, not the new ones.
Perhaps one day we will have RPGs that allow the player (or players) to attempt the same ridiculous schemes to deal with a situation as they do in PnP gaming

But, my main concern is not so much having six different solutions to every quest, but more that I'll be able to use the same manner of tactics right through to, and including, the end challenge (eg if I find success with my sneaky underhanded thief throughout the game, I'm able to use those strengths to "win" at the end game).

Our other goal we have which we have to remind everyone (even ourselves) from time to time is that we really, truly want to recreate an old-school roleplaying experience. That means that we aren't trying to create a completely unique RPG, just a really fun one.

I'll gladly take really fun (and immersive) over really unique (and really limited) any day.