I'm wondering if the designers of the game really know what they are doing. I just finished reading the news article with the post from Garett Graham about the game. After reading that, my confidence in the game went way down. I've read the interviews about why the wizard class was left out, but their excuses are lame. The differences are more than minimal between wizards and sorcerers. Now bards, druids, and even a whole race(gnomes) are left out for more of the same lame reasons about implimenting them late. Why in the world didn't they impliment them in the first place. And after reading such nonsense, it doesn't suprise me these guys were going to leave halflings and everyones beloved Paladins out of the game origionally. I could be wrong and this could turn out to be a great game, possibly better that the BGs, but since the guys at SSI have shown little sparkle in the past with D&D(without Bioware and Black Isle at least), their latest round of excuses don't exactly instill me with confidence. I hope they prove me wrong.

You've got a point there... But really, just leaving the gnomes out isn't such a big deal. We ran a poll a few months ago about how many people play them in CRPGs and the end results showed that only 2 or 3% (or a bit more, don't remember the exact figure by heart) play them.
Also, they have a good (or at least better than for the rest) excuse for them being left out... WoTC didn't originally have them in 3rd edition...

Hopefully all of the things the new PoR is lacking won't interfere with playing enjoyment too much.

Actually you don't really have a point. It is very easy to accuse the developers of being lame.

First of all let me state that I feel that a game that includes all the classes and races would be a better game. Would it be a much better game? Probably not.

I really don't understand why everyone gets so hyped about the fact that they left three classes out. This will in no way influence gameplay at all.

Don't you think that they would want to bring us the best possible game. Apparently they have had valid reasons to leave these classes out. We will just have to wait and see to determine whether they made the right decision.

I'll agree that you both have valid points about it affecting game play. Most people don't play gnomes(at least as main characters-I certainly don't). However, I like to play a gnome as my multi-classed mage/cleric when creating a full party. I prefer the automatic speciality mage status they get. And I'm not calling the designers lame, just their excuses. Maybe they do have a good reason, but the ones they've given so far don't seem very good to me. What they present as excuses seem to me as more like weak corprate taglines to apease the public. Seems like that all I've heard from the good folks at SSI regarding the game.

Perhaps having all the classes and races wouldn't make it that much better of a game. But I just have to wonder why they would not impliment such basics? And while it won't influence the basic gameplay, it could very well influence my enjoyment of the game(or countless others enjoyment of the game as well). I just feel that if they are going to tout the game as being better that BG2, they should at least offer a complete package of the basics. Without having a solid offering(I'm wondering if they have a solid concept) of the basics, they only leave me at least to wonder how the rest of the game will fare when scrutinized against the opposition that is in the market place today.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be openly critical of the game. After all, I haven't seen anything more that screenshots of it as of yet. However, I do mean to question of logic of its designers. But I agree with the wait and see philosophy. Hopefully the game will live up to the high hopes of its designers and shut me up :D

Must be one of the reasons they don't dare to tout it as better than BG2. :p

You have every right to be critical of a game. Hell, I spend quite an amount of time dedicated to this game on my website, and I am critical of this game. I know that the game will have certain flaws. I just think that the absence of classes will only be a minor one.

The producers are claiming that the game is going to be better than BG2 in certain areas. I feel that PoR does indeed have a better graphical engine compared to the infinity one. I have to be cautious, as I haven't played the game.

Only time will tell how this game will score, but I do have a good feeling about it. My guess is that it will feature some awesome gameplay, and that is way more important than a couple of features.

The explanation why Wizards are not included in the game is good as far as it goes. If the number of learnable spells is so low that there is no advantage playing a wizard (except pure rolepaying) as a opposed to Sorcerers then wizard would be left by the wayside even if they had been included. So why are they so few spells included in the game? In the end POR 2 might end up being a triumph of graphics over substance. I might be wrong and I hope I am.

Because the spells in PoR are truly spectacular with great effects (reminds me of Torment), but making any amount of spells with that much special animation takes a lot of time, not to mention resources. BG2 used up a lot of BG1 and IWD's effects, so they could add more new spells much more easily.
And since PoR is a totally new game, it can't be compared to BG2 as long as spells are concerned. BG2 builds on BG1, so they had most of the work already done before.

Hmm, maybe I didn't read enough of their reasons why they didn't include wizards. I do remember one interview where they said they didn't include them because they were origionally focusing on 3rd edition classes so they put a lot of time in the sorcerer class(much to Tal's chagrin(sp?)). When they figured out people wanted wizards as well(perhaps through hate mail :D), they said in the interview that they would have had to implement a whole new spell interface system for them. I can definately see that. I just felt at the time they should have had the sense to put wizards in origionally as they play very differnt from sorcerers. Up to this point, I hadn't read about there being so few spells in the game. I won't even touch that, as it could be a very sensitive subject for me(usually like to have three mages of some type in my parties-BIG mage fan).

Not the dreaded tounge smiley from Tal! Why oh why?!? :p Heh, heh.

I think that there is one other hugely important reason why classes have been left out. The producers haven't stated this directly, but they hint at it in certain answers that they give. I have the feeling that they have a very limited budget. I have the feeling that they don't have the budget for additional classes and races.

In one reaction they stated that they are part of a bigger company right now (after the take over) and they have more finances for future titles.

One thing about PR2, I like the sound of is that it will be set in one overall location, which hopefully will give us the impression of the size and scale of the city instead of having the game scattered all over the forgotton realms.

That sounds interesting, as I'm sure it is a huge place. Even though I doubt it, I hope it doesn't start to get repetative being in one general area all the time. That was part of the problem with BG: too many areas that had the same look. Though in that case it was enless forestt, not a city such as Myth Drannor. Judging from what I've heard of the area, if they can impliment it right, it shouldn't get boring(knock on wood ;)).

There is some diversity in each area you get to explore within MD to keep areas from getting to repetitive. The Dwarven sections will have its own look and feel, elven sect own look and feel and so on and so on.