Well, you probably should check out Obisidians upcoming CRPG game "Pillars of Eternity". Any Pathfinder CRPG they create will probably use a version of that game's engine.
|
My main picks:
1. Turn-based combat, either similar to TOEE (actual Standard/Move/etc. actions) or Divinity: Original Sin (action points, could work with Pathfinder).
2. Isometric view. Just a standard really.
3. Leave out Mass Effect style "choices", put in D:OS style choices. Mass Effect made it very clear which path would be "good" and which was "bad". D:OS (and a few other games) are a lot less clear about what personality you're ending up with.
4. Some kind of upgradeable/customizable "home base". Those are always fun.
5. The ability to customize more than just a single character. Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 were great, but I missed being able to customize out more than just my main. TOEE did this right, letting you customize your entire party right off the bat.
I'm with OP, TOEE (at least after the patches) was an amazing example of what a Pathfinder CRPG should go for. TOEE+D:OS would be the golden great of CRPGs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the mechanics are solid, I really don't care overly much what system it uses. I just want a toolset/worldbuilding application like NWN1 had, and the ability to create and host individual independent user-created worlds for people to multiplayer play on.
I've been looking for a game like with ever since I left NWN behind, after nearly ten years of playing it near-constantly. Something to bring back together some of those NWN communities which have since gone their separate ways.
Most anything else I could take or leave, really. And a game without one I'm not sure if I'd be interested or not.
I am on board with turn based as well. Something that combines the RPG with more of a tactical play style over a twitch play style would be great.
Actually, I would think that it shouldn't be that hard to allow RTWP and turn based with the player having the option to choose. The animations and actions would be exactly the same. Just one pauses between each character and the other runs them as a whole.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see turn-based combat also, like Temple of Elemental Evil, but I envision a twist: after combat having the option to see a clip of combat in a real-time format using the choices you made during the turn-based combat....sort of a cinematic view of the combat afterwards.
I would love for any RPG to have also some randomly generated dungeons, it doesn't have to be all of them but a fair amount would be cool. I love a game where a walk-through book can only tell you generals and not specifics like where exactly each treasure is and how each monster is situated. This would make re-play value go through the roof.
Perhaps a way to customize magic spells...maybe they key off of your choice of God, alignment, element, or a certain creature. For example you could choose vermin/avian/plant/predator/Saranae/evil domain/ etc...and the spells cast that have a visual component to them would have different animations. A wizard that chooses vermin flavor would cast magic missile and bats would fly out from his hand to hit his foes....it would really add to the castings but I realize that this would require a ton of extra work.
Another option I wouldn't mind is something like the Elder Scrolls series of games. I enjoy the open gameplay and first person perspective for that series and would love to see Golorian from that viewpoint....
For other game ideas I am just going to list some games that I loved from the past:
Stronghold (the D&D version from SSI) was awesome for it's time and if that idea was updated and expanded upon I think you could have a truly unique and fantastic game franchise going.
Eye of the Beholder (3 was the best to me) a first person dungeon exploration with a fully controllable party...pure awesome. And along the same thoughtwave....
Might and Magic:World of Xeen was once more a first person style of game with a fully controllable and upgradable party.
Another thought is to take a look at a newer game that I am loving: Card Hunter. I really enjoy it and think this type of game could use some love.
I will post more as the ideas come but those are my major thoughts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Leave out Mass Effect style "choices", put in D:OS style choices. Mass Effect made it very clear which path would be "good" and which was "bad". D:OS (and a few other games) are a lot less clear about what personality you're ending up with.
This seems sort of antithetical to the spirit of reproducing a traditional RPG experience in video game form. When you're playing a tabletop RPG, you typically do know when you're making a decision with good intent or evil intent, and you are certainly in control of the personality that your character ends up embodying. I understand that there is some merit to the idea of stripping some of that power from the player as a way of making them focus on consequences rather than intent, but I don't think that makes Mass Effect-style choices less valid - in fact, they cleave much more closely to the sorts of choices you'd find yourself making in an actual tabletop roleplaying game.
|
What Mr. betts said about ME RP choices.
Please no turn based combat zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Id like to interact with the iconics as NPCs or possible group memebers. I enjoy being able to make my own PC though.
An editor would be swell, especially if you can make PFS Scenarios with it.
Co-op mode obviously is a must.
Engaging single player story set in Golarion.
/my list
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BG2 has remained the gold standard of CRPGs for me for a long time. And that system has RTWP (real time with pause), so I obviously dont mind such a system.
That being said, I have been loving the crap out of Divinity: Original Sin lately, which uses a turn based combat system. That game is just gobs of fun.
In the end, I'll be happy with either one. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I much prefer ToEE's turn based to Baldur's gate RTWP, personally. For those who say 'ZZZZzzzzz', its still faster than tabletop turn based like we have now :P
I do agree with an editor and co-op/single player, though. Perhaps even a harder version of single player where your other party members are computer-controlled PCs, and you just control one player (the leader), whereas normal mode would allow you to control them all.
While the storyline of Baldur's gate was awesome, I liked ToEE's gameplay much, much more. Minus the Mythic Dire Fiendish Half-Dragon Bugs that were so common in it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe Obsidian developed and thus owns the NWN2 (Electron) engine.
I would love to see a fully 3D engine like that. I'm not saying they'd reuse the Electron engine again 8+ years after the fact, but maybe a new 3D engine.
There are some options.
1) 2.5D isometric, like the Infinity engine games and Pillars of Eternity.
2) 3D with a retool of the Electron engine.
3) 3D with a new engine.
Number 3 seems the most expensive and thus the most unlikely.
But if I had to choose between 1 and 2 I'd take 2 every time. A dated 3D engine over a less dated 2.5D engine.
Moral choices and dialogue choices are of course a must.
I wonder if Obsidian could follow Bioware's lead once more, and provide a fully voiced protagonist, like DA2, ME123 and SWTOR.
I would *prefer* turn-based like ToEE, but I can totally live with real-time with pause after NWN/DA/ME/KOTOR/SWTOR have all gotten me used to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I really hated about the infinity engine games was the hectic and chaotic combat system. I've always felt more at war with my characters, trying to get them to do what I want and not commit horribly stupid acts of self-sabotage on the one hand or getting annoyed with having to give orders all the time with a very simple battle where scripting would have worked easily.
The NWN games certainly improved on this, as did dragon age, by allowing you to have different perspectives, chain commands, better feedback and slower combat, but all in all, real time combat just feels hectic and uncontrolled to me.
Divinity: Original Sin worked very well in that regard and so did, using a very different approach Might & Magic Legacy. And ToEE for all its many, many faults did get the feeling of DnD combat right and was the game which was closest to the tabletop rule set. If anything, this is what I would want from a Pathfinder single player game: to stay very true to the rule set. And that would mean turn based combat imho.
But, to be realistic, we will get real time combat. Because BG and NWN and the whole record of Obsidian/Black Isle doing that kind of thing successfully.
Dot
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely uninterested in "Adventure Card Game on device".
As for a CRPG -
* I loved NWN's visual 3D perspective, radial menu, and almost exact emulation of 3.0. I also liked NWN2's continuation into 3.5 but the loss of the radial menu was disappointing.
* Loved the NWN Toolset, and the attendant NWNVault where one could upload adventures or download Toolset packages. Fantastic!!!!
So basically, if Obsidian can very closely emulate PF's ruleset, deliver great graphics, a 3D or isometric perspective and improve on the plots and dialogue I'll be a customer.
A free mode (not interfered with main campaign though you can choose to have the original campaign on as an opinion)with an open isometric world (like storm of zephir but with more realism instead of monsters spawing out of air, no real population growth/loss so caravans don't really matter, etc.) which player creates a character (or a party) and there would be random events happening to the world.
It would be great if it's moddable so all kinds of ideas could contribute to the (modded) gameplay. Adding festivals, adventure hooks, disaster, dynamic events that you or even npc (depending on the npc's strength or a country's national power, etc.) may have an impact on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NWN, but turn based using Pathfinder rules.
Besides the Dire Half-Dragon Bugs so common in ToEE, I absolutely loved ToEE. Couldn't really play it without Co8 though, but man did I enjoy it.
My BIGGEST preference from ToEE over NWN, NWN2, and the various BG's is the turnbased system over the real-time system. I cannot stress enough how much better turn based is for this kind of game. I couldn't get through NWN or NWN2 due to the crappy controls, but I did beat ToEE, despite NWN and NWN2 having arguably better storylines.
Just imagine:
Rise of the Runelords PC. Or hell, I'll take ANY of the APs as a PC game!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Just because d20/3.x/PFRPG (arguably) works for a tabletop, that doesn't mean it will necessarily be the best system for a cRPG.They really do need to find a way around that.using Pathfinder rules.Probably still can't do that.
Not saying its the best or even possible, but this thread is my "dream" game, and for me, that is it.
|
|
Meh. Just because d20/3.x/PFRPG (arguably) works for a tabletop, that doesn't mean it will necessarily be the best system for a cRPG.
The absolute best would be one designed to take every advantage of the video game environment.
But I don't need the absolute best. I'm good with NWN2 level. Still one of my favorite CRPGs ever, and incidentally enough I'm in the middle of yet another playthrough right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The following are some of my favorite crpgs and consol rpgs ever. I wouldn't mind seeing a Pathfinder game taking elements from any of these. NWN2, The Gold Box Series, Temple of Elemental Evil, D&D Tactics, BG 1&2, IWD 1&2, the Shining Force series and the Suikoden series.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turn based like Temple would be preferred but I could go BG2 real time with pause if need be.
The big thing though is a party to adventure with. I want NPC's to join me. NPCs that interact with each other as well as me. Bring them to life, give me a reason to put them on the frontline and worry about them.
Lastly, something as open as BG1 would be nice, as long as it doesn't detract from a well done storyline.
Turn based like Temple would be preferred but I could go BG2 real time with pause if need be.
The big thing though is a party to adventure with. I want NPC's to join me. NPCs that interact with each other as well as me. Bring them to life, give me a reason to put them on the frontline and worry about them.
Lastly, something as open as BG1 would be nice, as long as it doesn't detract from a well done storyline.
I agree with you 100% on you first and third points. The second point you make is a debate I'm still having with myself. Like you I love NPC's with personalities and I love having interactions with them and would love if they even had a reputation type system in place like in NWN 2 where your actions influence the way some of your party views you. But I also love the ability to build my own party from scratch and experiment with my own builds and the different playstyles each one presents. If they could do a system like BG 1 and 2 had where you could play with either the computer generated NPCs or create your own party(admittedly at the cost of some of the storyline) that would be perfect for me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you 100% on you first and third points. The second point you make is a debate I'm still having with myself. Like you I love NPC's with personalities and I love having interactions with them and would love if they even had a reputation type system in place like in NWN 2 where your actions influence the way some of your party views you. But I also love the ability to build my own party from scratch and experiment with my own builds and the different playstyles each one presents. If they could do a system like BG 1 and 2 had where you could play with either the computer generated NPCs or create your own party(admittedly at the cost of some of the storyline) that would be perfect for me.Turn based like Temple would be preferred but I could go BG2 real time with pause if need be.
The big thing though is a party to adventure with. I want NPC's to join me. NPCs that interact with each other as well as me. Bring them to life, give me a reason to put them on the frontline and worry about them.
Lastly, something as open as BG1 would be nice, as long as it doesn't detract from a well done storyline.
I would like to have a base party that I create of between 3 and 4 characters and then have 2 or 3 party spots left for npcs to join. Also I think that I want full control over the NPC's inventory and leveling but that they should have in-story reasons for leaving the party at some point to continue on their own story, to be soon replaced by another NPC that either is met soon, was met in the past, or maybe a hireling/mercenary, or something like that. I don't want only one PC that I create. I also don't only want to only be able to have one NPC in the party.
I could see the NPC needing to breakoff from the party at some point due to needing to report recent events to his Church/Guild/Company/Commander/King, or to find something that the party could use at a later date to help prevent event X from happening (possibly rejoining the party to accomplish that) or dangerous events uncovered could directly effect the NPC's family/village/pet space hamster and he needs to go protect them while the party continues the quest....
Full party or single player option would be good as well. Never did get around to doing NWN2, was going raid crazy in Vanilla WoW back then. But, a rep system would also be great. Something like the Old Republic 2 had. Score high with one party member, get the stink eye from another. Lots of replayability with that kind of thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never found the controls were difficult or problematic in NWN.
Not sure why PF rules would be hard to implement - NWN had a pretty close emulation of 3.0 and the same thing goes for NWN2 for 3.5.
Definitely turned off by the idea of turn-based. I know PF uses initiative on the tabletop, but combats in NWN/NWN2 seemed to flow very well...
Pretty much that yeah. I think NWN struck the right balance between turn-based and real-time.
Oh, that reminds me I forgot:
@Thanks Orthos. I know I'm a grumpy bigot sometimes. Thanks for having my back.
heh ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'll be thrilled if it's turn based.
I'd strongly prefer using the PnP Pathfinder rules as well, but understand the legal grey area about those in a CRPG.
If I had to choose, I'd prefer turn based new rule set over pausable real time with the PnP ruleset though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'd like to see is a game like Final Fantasy Tactics, 3/4 isometric view, turn based combat, swap Jobs for Classes obviously. And while I'd like to see every class, prestige and archetype, I'd be happy with just every class. (Core, Basic, and Hybrid) And if you have to start out with just Core fine, but please add the ARG races even if they have to be DLC, I'll pay willingly extra for Gnoll, Catfolk, Kitsune and Ratfolk especially.
Above all else throw the hail mary and go all out on the character creation options. Aim at the deep ones like Soul Cailber 3, and Skyrim and try to blow them out of the water so that no two characters look the same.
Now as far as plot I have a suggestion. 1. Have a single player story where the player can make his party and work their way up through the levels to take on the big bad. Use the alignments of the party as a baseline for RP choices. Actual voice dialog is not important at all to me, so everything can be text. Using an AP like Rise of the Runelords would be great too as the base.
But 2. Have a campaign/scenario builder. Make your own dungeon and play to simulate your own stories.
And 3, while NO MEANS necessary, it would be kinda fun to have pvp 'arena'.
What I'd like to see is a game like Final Fantasy Tactics, 3/4 isometric view, turn based combat, swap Jobs for Classes obviously. And while I'd like to see every class, prestige and archetype, I'd be happy with just every class. (Core, Basic, and Hybrid) And if you have to start out with just Core fine, but please add the ARG races even if they have to be DLC, I'll pay willingly extra for Gnoll, Catfolk, Kitsune and Ratfolk especially.
Above all else throw the hail mary and go all out on the character creation options. Aim at the deep ones like Soul Cailber 3, and Skyrim and try to blow them out of the water so that no two characters look the same.
Now as far as plot I have a suggestion. 1. Have a single player story where the player can make his party and work their way up through the levels to take on the big bad. Use the alignments of the party as a baseline for RP choices. Actual voice dialog is not important at all to me, so everything can be text. Using an AP like Rise of the Runelords would be great too as the base.
But 2. Have a campaign/scenario builder. Make your own dungeon and play to simulate your own stories.
And 3, while NO MEANS necessary, it would be kinda fun to have pvp 'arena'.
I'd love that!
... the problem, of course, is that PF-style rules don't work nearly as well with FFT-style gameplay.
Everything from Initiative v. CT, to Spell Slots v. MP, and so on is a little "iffy", but if they ignore those elements and go straight for "here's our rules on an isometric grid"... well... still not that great, actually, because they can't build the isometric grids large enough.
A single fireball is 400 ft+40 ft/lvl. That is... enormous.
Enormous.
It translates into roughly 80 squares plus eight per level. Guh.
By comparison, if you look at an FFT board, nothing is that big.
A fireball's radius is as large as most Summon radii are - and those are enormous, often enough.
Now, Tactics Ogre, admittedly, had a larger play area, but it never quite popped the same way for me, visually speaking, because of the sacrifices they had to make for those larger areas.
Certainly, now, we've a lot more memory we can play with than those games did. Still, I'm not certain the cost-to-profit ratio of developing that kind of game could really be justified.
All that said, I'd not reject an isometric grid game out of hat. I'd totally play the heck out of it. I'm just not sold that PF is the best Table Top game rules for that style.
(Now, 4E, on the other hand, was basically made for that sort of thing...)
I am also uninterested in a card game. When I saw "Obsidian is making a PFRPG video game!" I was excited then I saw it was a card game and was disappointed.
the problem, of course, is that PF-style rules don't work nearly as well with FFT-style gameplay.
I seem to remember back when Goblinworks was announcing PFO it was stated more than once that they could not use the PFRPG rules and mechanics in a video game as that is a breach of the OGL.
So more than likely Obsidian would have to come up with a new set of mechanics (or use pillars of eternity's) but set in the Pathfinder world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit more complex than that, they can be used in games just fine, but there are some limitations on other things that can be done with the game as a result. Vic explained it a couple of times, if you can find the posts.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Orthos!
Said by whom and in what context?
I do believe the SRD is verboten, but not the OGL.
I'd like to explain my above post, and give a few clarifications.
- I was not being sarcastic when I said, "I would love that", despite the "this probably won't work" tone of the rest of my post
- I was not rejecting an isometric grid, despite being suspicious that it's prohibitive
Instead my points can be summed up as:
1) Isometric Grid battles could be amazing
2) The result, however, would not look anything like FFT
3) I'm uncertain of how well PF/Obsidian could translate into that in any sort of a reasonable context (though I am not dismissing it)
4) I'm uncertain of the costs for creating that style of game, especially within the context of Paizo, Obsidian, and their relative budgets
5) I think that 4E was a golden opportunity for an actual video game system to be made from a table top system: an opportunity that was wasted, unfortunately
6) I really want to play a PF and 4E video game
7) I love FFT (And TTO was great, too)
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit more complex than that, they can be used in games just fine, but there are some limitations on other things that can be done with the game as a result. Vic explained it a couple of times, if you can find the posts.
You might also want to look at Ryan Dancey's posts since there has been some discussion of the OGL for Pathfinder Online. Two that seem relevant:
The OGL does not prohibit anyone from making a computer game.
it prohibits you from publishing open game content with any license other than the OGL. All computer software, except that you write 100% yourself, has a license. Ergo, it is functionally impossible to combine the OGL and any software anyone would consider remotely "modern".But that's not why we're not using the tabletop game rules. We're not using them because they're inappropriate for the kind of MMO we want to produce.
Let me begin by saying that the purpose of the OGL is not to say what is copyright and what is not copyright. That issue cannot be resolved by WIzards of the Coast because the law about how a copyright is transmitted through derivative works is unclear when it comes to things like Dungeons & Dragons.
What the OGL does is clearly establish that some content can be used with the license and some content cannot. When you use the OGL, you don't have to have the debate about copyrights and derivative works. The license itself defines the legal regime for the work in question not the copyright law.
The Pathfinder tabletop game is produced using that license so there's no need for Paizo to attempt to parse what is copyright and not copyright and what is a derivative work and what is not a derivative work on materials it is using from 3rd parties - including Wizards of the Coast - in those works. So it doesn't.
The OGL cannot be used for a software project as complex as Pathfinder Online. The OGL has restrictions on the kinds of licensing terms that can be attached to a project that uses the OGL and those terms are incompatible with software projects that combine multiple tools and middleware, and operate as services that require end-user license agreements and Terms of Service agreements.
So Goblinworks, unlike Paizo, has to think about the copyright and derivative work issues.
The biggest problem is named objects that are legacy D&D - spells, magic items and monsters that Wizards could assert a copyright interest in. There are lots of such things in D&D that are derived from the public domain and that stuff is OK for us to use - but we have to decide what that is. Wizards isn't going to tell us. So we err perhaps on the side of caution - Wizards is a big company and they could afford to ties us in knots with litigation if they wished. We want to avoid the appearance of infringing their copyrights.
The second biggest problem is in the description of game mechanics. Game mechanics by themselves cannot be copyright. However, the game mechanics of a roleplaying game are not like the game mechanics of chess or poker. They embody a large amount of material that is likely copyright. Deciding what parts of the game mechanics are thus "safe" to use, and what part could potentially trigger a lawsuit is again a gray area where we have to decide. And we apply the same rule of thumb as before - we want to avoid the appearance of infringement.
Since Lisa and I worked at Wizards on Dungeons & Dragons and were deeply enmeshed in the decisions about how to create the OGL and what material to license with the OGL, I think we're uniquely qualified to have opinions about where those gray areas lie.
I'm comfortable with using things like the good/evil & law/chaos alignment matrix, and hit points and armor class, and various tests that mechanically work like a saving throw or a skill check, and other such low-level mechanics. That's the stuff I'm pretty confident cannot be copyright. I'm much less comfortable with enumerating the specific list of features a character gets for taking levels in specific classes, for example. So we built a game system that has a completely different mechanic for assigning abilities to characters that works nothing like D&D.
We are also going to use a real-time combat mechanic. Much of the combat system in D&D and Pathfinder is defined by the fact that it is not conducted in real-time. Since we are using real-time, we will therefore have a very different combat engine than D&D or Pathfinder tabletop, and thus we avoid another large area of rules that could entangle us in the question of infringement.
And of course the economic system including harvesting, crafting, and retailing in the MMO will be wildly different than that in the tabletop realm. The D&D and Pathfinder "economics" are a thin veneer of hand waving designed to obfuscate the fact that there's no rational market economy underneath them; they're set dressing for heroic adventuring power management, not a way to determine what the market price for a +2 flaming longsword should be in any given locale. The MMO economics absolutely will be.
And while I'd like to see every class, prestige and archetype, I'd be happy with just every class. (Core, Basic, and Hybrid) And if you have to start out with just Core fine, but please add the ARG races even if they have to be DLC, I'll pay willingly extra for Gnoll, Catfolk, Kitsune and Ratfolk especially.
Above all else throw the hail mary and go all out on the character creation options. Aim at the deep ones like Soul Cailber 3, and Skyrim and try to blow them out of the water so that no two characters look the same.
Can't believe I'm agreeing with a cat on anything :). But yes this 100%.
While I know it will be difficult to squeeze in every class, especially if you add the archetypes, and all the races due to the sheer number of options Pathfinder gives us I would love to see that happen. And yes I would be willing to pay if it is a future add on or DLC. If not I'm hoping for a strong modding community like NWN1 and 2 had so we can get fan made classes, races etc for those that didn't make the initial cut. And yes please a nice deep character creation menu. I love the ones in Dragon's Dogma and Skyrim. In fact I often bemoaned the lack of a charcter creation program. Something kinda like Herolab but strickly for making a nice model to represent your character and like in herolab having the opportunity to purchase add on packages for extra items and options that come avliable with each new publihed source. There I've thrown that idea out there. Any software designers out there that is my gift to you, take it and run with it.
I'd like to explain my above post, and give a few clarifications.
- I was not being sarcastic when I said, "I would love that", despite the "this probably won't work" tone of the rest of my post
- I was not rejecting an isometric grid, despite being suspicious that it's prohibitive
Instead my points can be summed up as:
1) Isometric Grid battles could be amazing
2) The result, however, would not look anything like FFT
3) I'm uncertain of how well PF/Obsidian could translate into that in any sort of a reasonable context (though I am not dismissing it)
4) I'm uncertain of the costs for creating that style of game, especially within the context of Paizo, Obsidian, and their relative budgets
5) I think that 4E was a golden opportunity for an actual video game system to be made from a table top system: an opportunity that was wasted, unfortunately
6) I really want to play a PF and 4E video game
7) I love FFT (And TTO was great, too):)
Well the field doesn't 'have' to be the size of FFT, it was just my point of reference, that each grid square = 5ft. like the regular table top. I'd be fine with the fields being huge, or maybe a 'overworld' move around with 'random' encounters that then take you to the map, or even times where you make camp and set watch for the day and see what comes around.
And there was a 4E D&D game but it played just like every other hack and slash, I played the demo of it (Daggerdale I think it was called.) but it wasn't very good.
And there was a 4E D&D game but it played just like every other hack and slash, I played the demo of it (Daggerdale I think it was called.) but it wasn't very good.
I haven't heard of this, but if it wasn't on a grid with at will/encounter/daily powers, they're doing it wrong. It's not a 4E game, it's a generic D&D-brand licensed product.
As to anything else, as I said, I love FFT, but any isometric design we get is going to be different enough from that game that they're not really going to look (or play) similarly. That's the source of my warning: while I love that game, it's not going to be replicated by a PF game, or if it is, the video game isn't going to replicate PF.
I'd love a PF-brand FFT-style game, though. :D
3. Leave out Mass Effect style "choices", put in D:OS style choices. Mass Effect made it very clear which path would be "good" and which was "bad". D:OS (and a few other games) are a lot less clear about what personality you're ending up with.This seems sort of antithetical to the spirit of reproducing a traditional RPG experience in video game form. When you're playing a tabletop RPG, you typically do know when you're making a decision with good intent or evil intent, and you are certainly in control of the personality that your character ends up embodying. I understand that there is some merit to the idea of stripping some of that power from the player as a way of making them focus on consequences rather than intent, but I don't think that makes Mass Effect-style choices less valid - in fact, they cleave much more closely to the sorts of choices you'd find yourself making in an actual tabletop roleplaying game.
I don't want to put words into the OP's mouth, but speaking of Mass Effect...
I remember there was the DLC, where a mining asteroid was hijacked by terrorists. Towards the end, you had two options; Let the lead terrorist go and spare hostages locked in a room with a bomb, or go for the kill and ultimately sacrificing innocents.
There were no good or evil choices here, and whichever you picked did NOT have an effect on your alignment. What did have an effect on your alignment (I think) was how you answered for your decision (one of the workers, who was the father of the hostage, assisted with this endeavor).
If you decided to kill the leader, the father of one of the hostages (who escaped from the terrorists and was helping you) would confront you about pretty much failing to save his daughter. The good guy response was along the lines of "How many others would he kill if he got away? I sadly had no choice, I'm sorry".
What I'm trying to say is, I think there is definitely room for morally grey areas to help define your character. This one decision, which had absolutely NO impact on any other part of the game, has stuck with me. When I was presented the choice, I seriously took a few moments (that felt like minutes) to think out what I should do.
That moment was oddly one of the biggest highlights in that series for me.