GhostofAnakin

Agree with the first two, not so much the third.

This is why I don't look forward to my second play through. I don't like XP grinding, but it seems I'm going to have to if I don't want to get my ass handed to me every battle. I'm playing the original Borderlands. The two games are remarkably similar, except BL2 has a much better story (or rather, more apparent story).

$3.5 million is what I'm hoping for. Another large city? Yes please.

You know what, this is exactly how I feel about the latest BioWare games. I'm finding that the only thing that has kept me playing is the NPCs. Most of the time, the main story ranges from average to weak. I think that's why I enjoyed ME2 as much as I did. As weak as the main story was, the fact that a good portion of the game dealt with quests associated with your party members was its saving grace for me.

I'd tune in if the hot ladies at Obsidian were playing IWD.

This is how I feel. The more time there is for pledges, the more things included in this game. For example, it doesn't look like we'll hit the $3.5 million stretch goal of a new big city. If pledging were to be extended for another two week, three weeks, a month, would we then be able to reach that goal? If extra time allows us to reach a goal like that, I'm all for it.

Finally finished Borderlands 2, as a commando. The end battle was ... long. It wasn't particularly hard; I found a nice spot to hide behind and alternate between sniping and using my auto turret. It was just long. Not sure if I want to continue with that character on a second play through or attempt one of the other characters I haven't used yet.

Not to ignore the rest of your post, but this part had me actually laugh out loud picturing that scenario taking place.

This, especially the bolded part. I prefer only party members who actually are in the party at the time the XP was earned receive their share. No way am I sharing XP with some dude who is resting back at camp while I'm taking on bad guys.

Question is: did we get the digital download version of George Ziets, or the boxed version?

I do think that could be interesting if implemented properly. Killing someone out in the woods, with no one around to see it, shouldn't necessarily hurt your reputation with whatever faction that person is associated with. It could even add a strategic/moral element to decision making. For instance, there are two city guards on patrol: One is a thief and murderer who has a bounty on him placed by the family of the individual he killed, while the other is just doing his job, and hasn't done anything wrong. Do you kill the second lookout just to make sure no one reports what you've done? Do you bribe the "good" guard to look away? Or do you then have to meticulously plan for a way to kill the first guard, without the second guard seeing you? If NPCs are required to "see" you do something to either gain or lose reputation with their faction, it could add all sorts of possibilities for accomplishing tasks.

I don't know if I like Borderlands 2 enough to do a second play through, but that's good to know if I do.

I don't mind the dialogue options remaining if they eventually branch to new options as you get to know the NPC, but the ones that you've seen and never get expanded upon need to go ASAP. It's just added clutter. Edit: a bit of clarity about what I mean. Say for instance you just met a companion and one of the dialogue options available to you is "So why'd you leave home?". Early on, their response since they don't know you might be, "I don't want to talk about it", but over time they eventually open up to you. So that dialogue option of "So why'd you leave home?" is an example of one that I don't mind remaining in your dialogue cue, even if it takes a while to get more than "I don't want to talk about it". The one that needs to go is if you ask them something and they give you the only answer you're ever going to get on the subject right away, and thus that option remaining in your dialogue cue is unnecessary clutter.

That's my concern. Which kind of sucks because a new big city would be amazing. Maybe Obsidian can swap the $3 and $3.5 million stretch goals.

I know that designing/programming for a new big city makes it a more difficult item to implement, but I'd prefer the $3 million and $3.5 million stretch goals reversed. I prefer another big city than a stronghold. So hopefully we hit $3.5 million.

I honestly don't understand how being able to save, but not being required to save, at any time frustrates you. I can understand perhaps if the game forces you to save every minute. But the save system is completely and entirely up to the player to use. I just don't understand how something that is optional and which the player doesn't even have to use can frustrate someone. It's like saying that having those console cheats in BG where you could enable "God mode" frustrates you, even though you didn't bother to use it, and aren't forced to use it. So Baldurs Gate, PS:T, etc. don't fit a design of what a true cRPG should be, then? It's been a bit since I last played them, but I recall that you can save at any time in those games. You seemed to love those games, yet the option of being able to save at any time in Project Eternity seems to frustrate you (your word). That doesn't make sense. What? I wouldn't have an issue with that hypothetical situation, because it still gives me the option to sell at merchants. And while it's not my ideal situation, it's not game breaking for me. Nor would it "frustrate" me. It seems like a weird system, but it wouldn't bother me like this save anytime thing seems to bother you. You're the one that originally brought it up. So if it's moot, why did you mention it in the first place? Anyway, you've already got somewhat what you want (Iron Man mode), and people who want to save at any point have gotten what they want. Win-win, no?

On the final mission for Borderlands 2 with my commando. I ended up at level 32 (same as with my assassin). Hope it's enough.

True or false, even with unlimited saves, a player can choose not to save all the time? In other words, having unlimited saves doesn't force a player to actually save every two seconds, right? True or false, with limited saves, a player can NOT choose to save when they want? One option still allows people to play the game however they want (limit their saving, or save every second step their character takes), while the other option makes it IMPOSSIBLE for people who want to save often, to save often? How is this not clear to you? Your example about Amnesia being played as a FPS doesn't even apply because you're comparing apples and oranges. I've never played Amnesia, so I'm assuming it's a stealth game? So if that's the case, obviously it isn't designed to be able to be played as a FPS. But considering Obsidian is going with a save system where you can save at any time, it's not even a comparable situation as your example since it does fit the design of PE. Basically, your example is one where what you (hypothetically) want doesn't fit the design of the game, while the topic at hand (limited saves versus unlimited saves) does fit the design of the game. Also, I'm not sure where you're going with a lot of what you said. At best, you're misunderstanding what I've said. At worst, you're misrepresenting things I've said. I didn't say a game should allow anything as an option. We're talking specifically about the save feature, and whether or not it makes more sense for limited saves or, for lack of a better word, unlimited saves. As for your "that's what mods are for", so there you go. Maybe a mod can be made that will allow you to play the game with the limited saves system that you want.

My guess is probably a picture of one of the towns/dungeons we'll be exploring.

Agreed. Though I will say, it's kind of an intriguing idea. Just not within the scope of this game.

So faction reputations ... I like that. It'll be interesting to see how exactly it's implemented (probably similar to FO:NV).

I'll be pledging over the next couple of days. It's down to either the $65 tier or the $140 tier ($80 and $160, respectively, after international shipping). I'm just a fan of physical copies of games.

I think if Obsidian was making this game under a strict schedule laid out by a publisher, I might share some of the OP's concerns. But since that's one thing working in their favor (no publisher to make them adhere to Release Date X), I think they'll be able to implement all these new features without much concern over the quality of the final product.

She also seems to have spent the time between games in a tanning booth.

I think this could be good for PS3 owners who couldn't play ME1 before, but for me it's pretty much a non-purchase. I've already got all three games, and I've got the DLC for ME1 and ME2. So unless they add some features they haven't indicated yet, there's no point at all for me to buy this.