Oplinger, I don't think we're going to agree on this matter. I could continue arguing with you, but I see the futility in that. I understand that you have a different opinion, and that's fine. Maybe you're right, I don't honestly know. If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have started this thread.
ManInRed, I agree. The game's hook for adventuring is story - learning more about the world, doing jobs for information and favors, or simply doing it because you want to. For example, imagine that your character finds out from a friend that several children have gone missing in the last few weeks, all in the same part of town. Your quest would be to investigate what's going on, and eventually slay the spider-monster that's been luring them with candy and eating them. Is there a +3 sword of giant slaying at the end? No, but you can be sure that you did the right thing, saved a few lives, and gained the gratitude of everyone in that part of the city. Maybe they'll be more likely to help you out on your next quest in that area, maybe their shops will give discounts to you, or maybe killing the spider-monster puts you on the trail to find out more about your main quest objective. Rewards don't have to be numbers, they can be so much more, and I'd love to explore that in an RPG.
Xdeser, think of it more like Mass Effect 1, with the complex level-up system and variety of side quests, only instead of having levels for your guns, every model of gun has different pros and cons. Maybe a serrice council pistol has great accuracy, but not a lot of stopping power, while a hane-kadar weapon has great damage, but overheats quickly. You still have ranked weapon upgrades, which you can swap on the Normandy, but you don't have to pick up and compare every gun you ever find with what you're using at the moment. You still get credits for hacking things that give you information or open doors, but lootable objects are removed.
The Abhorrent, yes, it would be a lot like Dark Souls, only with a lot less grinding. You'd have to learn the patterns, strengths, and weaknesses of your enemies if you want to defeat them. There would also be a lot more story presented to the player through gameplay, not just through obscure cutscenes. Not to knock on Dark Souls or anything, mind you, that game is very good at what it does. The combat would generally be a bit faster though, with more of a focus on combining your melee attacks with your special attacks gained from leveling.
Latinidiot, durability is an interesting point. I hadn't considered it before, mostly because of the overwhelming number of people who dislike durability systems in their RPGs. Personally I prefer Skyrim's smithing system to Oblivion's repair system, but maybe that's just me. I was thinking more that certain enhancements to your weapon might not be effective against every type of enemy, and certain enemies are stronger or weaker against certain weapon types. A stone golem might laugh away sword strikes like they're nothing, but a hammer to the chest would leave a serious impact. On the other hand, a fast and agile enemy might close the distance before your hammer swing resolves, but a sword would be able to counter and riposte in time to match his speed. This combos well off of certain special attacks; you could freeze a fast enemy to hit it with your hammer, or pierce a golem so your sword starts leaving an impact. The art style is partially stylized, but the environments will be massive and hand-crafted. It is indeed designed for 3rd person gameplay, medium distance.
DoPo, I already covered this with Oplinger. I will ask this: what is superior, a mass-produced weapon for an army, or a weapon that was crafted specifically to match the combat style and physical requirements of the user? I'd prefer the latter, and if I was in a dungeon, I wouldn't stow my weapon to wield one I've never tested and had no experience fighting with.
