GhostofAnakin

I think a deadline is good, because otherwise the project loses focus. But I do think that a "soft" deadline is the better approach, with a target date that is aimed for but that can be extended if the game needs more polishing.

That Collector's Edition tier is looking better and better by the day. Maybe I'll hold out a bit longer until they include an autographed picture of Chris Avellone and Josh Sawyer dressed as characters from Project Eternity.

I'm not sure it'd be worth the time and effort for Obsidian given the scope of the game, but I actually think it would be a neat feature. Owning a pub could be an extra source of income for the player, but the player would also have to hire staff to both tend the bar, wait tables, and of course, act as bouncers for the rowdy mobs. Perhaps there are dozens of different folks you can recruit from for each of those positions, with the better ones costing the player more money (but potentially earning the PC more money in monthly income). It could also act as a place where the player makes deals with folks (ie. where they come to see the PC about taking on their quest).

My friend is a dink. He pesters me non-stop to buy Borderlands 2, constantly reminding me of the release date. And now he won't do MP with me until my character is as high a level as his.

Speaking of speculation, I actually wonder if them leaving will open the door for EA to basically completely change the games BioWare develops. I know folks have been on BioWare (myself included) for their recent releases seeming more streamlined, or "EA'd" if you will. But at the same time, how much of what remained in those games (ie. whatever RPG elements or non-streamlined features) were a direct result of Muzyka and/or Zeschuk fighting on BioWare's behalf? Maybe I'm overestimating how much impact they had with the direction BioWare, under EA, was taking. But I just wonder if now that there's no "high ranking" folks at the top levels of EA that have ties to BioWare, will EA now shift its entire focus to whatever games they want to see churned out, with absolutely nothing of the former "BioWare" in them?

Expansion packs. I hate DLC with a passion.

This has been discussed in the random videogame news thread.

This is actually a difficult poll to vote on. I was going to, but then I found myself checking each box in the options above. I guess for me it depends on the setting and the story. Some of those archetypes work better if the story of the PC is more light-hearted, some work better if the PC's story is about redemption, etc. A couple of characters I'd like to see in either case are the mentor type (Kreia has made me a fan of this type) and some kind of rogue/shady type who we, the player, don't quite know if we can trust his/her motives.

I think all characters should be subject to killing, even ones that may be important to a plot. It's about choice and consequence. If you kill a character who is central to a plot, maybe you lose out on that whole quest line. Or maybe you suddenly make your chances of defeating the final boss that much more difficult because the character you just killed had vital information about the end boss' strengths and weaknesses that is no longer available to you. So I do think all characters (including companions) should be killable at any time, but there should be noticeable consequences for doing so. This will act as a deterrent to people just going around mass murdering everyone without anything bad happening in return.

In all seriousness, I do wonder how much the two co-founders leaving will affect the BioWare division and its voice in which games or what direction those games takes. While EA were the ultimate "bosses", at least Muzyka and Zeschuk in their roles on the EA board (or whatever title they had) could act as a bit of a buffer, and could advocate for their company. Now, who is on the board or who is in any sort of position high up in EA's chain of command to even speak on BioWare's behalf?

I must be easy to please. While they're not among my favorite games, both NWN and NWN 2 were decent enough fun for me. I finished both once each.

I actually really like this idea. It could make the decision to toss aside a "weak starting weapon" that much more difficult if it had cumulative benefits to continuing to use it.

I could've sworn I posted in this thread already -- or maybe it was a similar thread -- but I chose option 6. I think that game worlds should offer the player a noticeable difference in how various things play out (ie. companions, quests, factions) depending on your choices. It's one of the things Alpha Protocol did very well, IMO.

It'll be nice to see single player being the focus of a game. It seems that nowadays, even if the game is primarily a single player game, there's resources dedicated to a tacked-on multiplayer component.

I voted for the first option, where gold should have weight but depending on the difficulty level. I've always believed that there should be at least one easy level where things really are simplified or made easier for the player. Being able to carry gold but without worrying about it taking up inventory space is, IMO, one of those things. At higher levels, for sure. But there should be one level where it's basically like a walk in the park.

The Obsidian guys better hurry up and decide upon what they want for the $2.4+ million stretch goals.

It'll be interesting to see what effect (if any) this has on BioWare going forward. In terms of their ability to make games (to a certain extent) how they want to, one would assume that Bio just lost two of its staunchest and more powerful supporters when discussing things with their EA overlords. But at least Casey Hudson is still around! Long live artistic integrity endings!

It'll be interesting to see what effect (if any) this has on BioWare going forward. In terms of their ability to make games (to a certain extent) how they want to, one would assume that Bio just lost two of its staunchest and more powerful supporters when discussing things with their EA overlords. But at least Casey Hudson is still around! Long live artistic integrity endings!

Well, Wal-Mart's special combo package deal tipped me over the edge to purchase Borderlands 2. It comes with the original Borderlands game for free, so I figured that was enough incentive to give it a try.

Anyone can fire a gun ... but not anyone can fire a gun well. It also takes skill to actually be effective at using firearms, especially if we discuss it in a combat setting.

I voted for the "other or multiple" option. Obsidian's track record of games I've played and loved of theirs basically sold me on the game the moment they announced it.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

There should be a third poll option for indifferent. I don't necessarily want firearms, but I'm also not against them if Obsidian feels they'd be a good addition to the game world.

Agreed. It gives the player a deeper understanding of that companion, shedding light on their background and motivations and, if done right, can be the perfect hook for why that companion is following the PC -- or why the PC would want that specific companion following him/her.

Josh posted this at 6:47 pm EST. Surely Obsidian has new information for us since then!