Wormerine

Somewhat yes - but the thing is, for the most part PoE design doesn't take advantage of being a real time game - a vast majority of mechanics aren't affected by move from RTwP to TB. It's not lets say Starcraft, which all gameplay revolves about being done in real time. There are some mechanics which are causing major problems. The question is, will Obsidian come up with solution and if they do, is it a solution which consumes a lot of tinkering with individual system. We will find out next week :-).

Perhaps. For me turn-based was a reason to return to the game, I was pretty much done with it, so while it introduced problems, it also made game interesting again to me. I got a taste of it, gave my feedback and voice my concerns and froze my play through waiting for a patch. I became active on forums once again, as news of incoming patch spread.

Feedback from you perhaps. I for one love this stuff. I wish Deadfire had a bit more of "Storm of Zehir" in there. That overworld map just begs for a wee bit of simulation.

I don't think it turned out nearly as bad as you suggest. Frankly, I never found Deadfire turn based combat to be as tedious as Divinity's can get in come cases. The biggest issue turn-based had that mechanics tied to real time (ability duration, recovery etc.) didn't translate well. We will see if they came up with a fix next week. As far as tedious encounters - yes, there are some of them. Boarding ships in TB is just tedious affair, and there were some encounters which really, really dragged on - an ambush in sunken city for example. On the other hand, I felt quite a few encounters got enhanced, showcasing enemy composition, that I didn't notice in my two previous playthroughs. I don't think it is the case of how many enemies and how many characters you control, but if an act of giving an order to your unit is an interesting decision to make, or not.

That is not what I have been suggesting (I think I clarified it further in my later post, that I don’t think ditching RTwP would be good). Rather, the turned based system well amplifies the best and worst elements of the design. Ideally I would like to see both modes at launch for PoE3, considering they both seem to rely more or less on similar ruleset. There is some things to figure out, but hopefully, if Obsidian figures how to translate PoE combat system into turn based system now, it might be much easier and cheaper to launch with both for PoE3. What I meant was, that in RTwP it is easier to ignore problems - speeding through dull encounters, completely ignoring key mechanics, playing improperly due to inability to properly manage the party and taking it for difficulty. Turned based, encourages to properly engage with mechanics but at the same time it showcases how repetitive or shallow some encounters can be, as player input is necessary. When player hasto make a move and realises there is no real decision to make, it sticks out far more in turn based mode, then in RTwP, where fast forward and auto AI will do the job. Therefore, my suggestion that designing with turn based in mind and testing from the get go, might result in better experience overall for both modes.

You kiddin? After a year, beta is finally coming to a close

I tend to be flexible with styles of games I play. I grew up with infinity games and I found Deadfire's turn based system more intuitive. While in its beta form I think it is inferior, due to stay and balance issues which don't exist in real time. But a stat based game system, which wants you to analysing defences and choose the best course of action works better when those breaks for decision making are build into the game. Sure there are players which will ignore the system, and power through on lower difficulty levels, and there are those who have a grasp on the gameplay without the need for mandated think-breaks. But for majority of players TurnBased might offer a more intuitive experience. If PoE3 happens, to be honest I wish it was designed using turn based system with real time alternative - playing turn based really highlight interesting fights and really boooooring fights. Make game interesting in turn-based, and it should work well in real time as well... ...right?

Originally, when multiclassing was to be more flexible (dnd3 style) companions would pick first class from limited selection, and then could multiclass which whatever you wanted them to. Obsidian's answer to roleplaying was: "you pick the class, it is up to you to explain why Eder can cast spells now". When they changed how multiclassing works they limited class options for the companion. The reason gives was unexpected UI issues. So I don't think there is anything on design level that would stop Obsidian from doing that - just that it might take more work, then one might expect.

I quite enjoyed Endgame. The key is not to think too much - it's pretty inconsistant with its own rules, even though those are pretty vague. Otherwise you will just say a lot of: I tried to get into Sonic games recently as I like platformers very mucho. I tried Generations and Sonic Mania. Oh boy, I didnt' enjoy them at all.

I think it should be in "spoiler" subforum. Tis difficult to discuss areas, without spoiling anything. I liked all of the "choose your approach dungeons" the most, be it Fort Deadlight, Slavers camp or Nimnoks temple. From DLCs Beast of Winters inBetween has special place in me heart. I liked the least the finale - such a not fulfilled potential there, for some epic story and combat time. Far too short for a conclusion of a lengthy adventure.

"I can do it all day"

That is some money talk my limited brain doesn't understand. Seems like Deadfire really didn't sell well. Is anyone able to translate this percentage into sold units? On the other hand, Phoenix Point's deal with the devil (aka Epic) seems like a pretty good boon to those who invested via fig.

The patch adding turn-based mode certainly seemed to bring a lot of issues across both modes. That's unfortunate. There was quite a bit of happiness when t-b was announced and from colloquial evidence it seems to bring new players in - Obs can look at the sales and stats and see if it was worth it or not. T-b mode doesn't necessary detract from anything, though it's addition did have negative impact on overall quality. Hopefully, the next patch will squash all the bugs. Whenever, it was redesigned enough to fix some issues which come from translating rtwp system into t-s remains to be seen. I have been enjoying t-b mode quite a lot, and it might become my preferred mode, if it won't feel as mechanically inferior in certain areas. Edit: typos

No one is speaking against crowdfuding. I am speaking against giving money, when being blackmailed with an IP I like, by a corporation, which as far as I can remember didn't publish a decent game in a while. There is no crowdfunding, because Obsidian is owned by Microsoft and is funded by Microsoft. No matter if you pay Microsoft for PoE3 after release, just before, or before they start production, Microsoft will fund it and, if it wishes to, influence PoE3 developement. If Microsoft would decide to crowdfund PoE3 I would hope there would be an uproar. Not from PoE fans, but anyone interested in crowdfunding and gaming in general, because that would be a new cAAApitalism audacity.

No they are not. Microsoft is the parent company, Obsidian is the subsidiary. I have been ignoring Obsidian in this conversation, becase, they are not the ones I take the issue with here. Hopefully, Obsidian are allowed to do their thing, in which case crowdfunding is unnecessary - their payroll is from Microsoft and they will produce games that Microsoft will {hopefully] profit from. My understanding is limited, but I think Obsidian is not financially independent in any way. I don't think you can just give money to Obsidian and bypass Microsoft. You give money to Microsoft, and they include it in PoE3 budget - be it by allowing more people to work on it, allowing them to work for longer, or just they have "free" money to pay wages with and project stays unaltered. Purely speculating here.

As far as I know, no multi billion dollar corporation as of yet went to Kickstarter requesting funds to be able to develop the project “they believe in”. It has been common for independent developers to use crowdfunding success as a proof of interest when seeking additional investors. The most controversial situation I am aware of is funding of Shenmue III, which was announced on Sony e3 stage, while not disclosing Sony’s investment into the project. I am still a bit fuzzy what the exact relationship between Shenmue team and Sony is. Here is Jim Sterling somewhat mirroring my feelings on the subject, especially a prospect of corporations dipping into crowdfunding. https://youtu.be/nXqrYx-04Ok EDIT: hilariously, at the end he advertises “We Happy Few”. oh boy

Yes, I did and tried to hint at it that it’s just my personal perspective, which I know is inaccurate. As a side not, Non-profit doesn’t mean they don’t aim to make a profit - it is just that their singular goal isn’t making as much money as possible. However, I did trust that Obsidian wanted to keep making games, while I don’t see how giving away your money to publisher is supposed to incentivize them to do anything. If it’s is a niche title, and it not expected to sell well enough to be worth investing in... they already got money from this niche market, so why bother investing to much into the game? Of course, if the end product is what you backed then it is a-OK. As to the notion, that somehow backing a corporation is more secure. Have you seen pre-orders and how misleading the end products are? Just recent go-to example: Anthem and it’s entire advertisement has been one big lie, going all the way back to announcement trailer. Microsoft ain’t EA, sure, but you would really just give money upfront and cross your fingers for the best? I mean you would, that what you’ve been telling for the last couple posts. Always preorder games then, huh? It’s not like anything shady ever happens.

Publishers don't need to get encouraged or convinced to do single-player story driven games. Those have a record of selling really well. It is just that they are not as profitable as having Devs working on exploitative ideas. Money is king - the hope is that Microsoft will use Obsidian as Sony uses its Devs to create great game to promote their platforms. No, giving publishers money before they even start developing the game doesn't give you any power over what they do. They promised Linux release? They can change it. They promised steam/got release? Sorry, Epic paid us. We said we will have no microtransactions? We do now. I am sure publishers would be happy to get as much money as possible from hardcore fans and the do what they want. Banner Saga guys are indies. There are benefits to being indy. Corporations don't get to do that. I see Crowdfunding as a sort of non-profit system (maybe because I work in a non-profit). You can't be a corporation and pretend to be a non-profit organization (ask for contributions)

I think where our opinions widely diverge is of Microsoft would honour promises made in a crowdfunded campaign. I see crowdfunding campaign in that situation as a purely anti-consumer, just as aggressively pushing pre-prders is anti-consumer. Corporations constantly walk back on their promises. I don't trust them in any capacity. Well, one thing is certain: I won't be joining any crowdfunding campaigns for a corporation. You do you.

All the positive and desirable things you mention, are a reality only if the party organising he crowdfunded is bound by a need of backers support. You are not taking the project away from Microsoft and you don’t replace company investors. Microsoft doesn’t need your money, and lets be honest, $4,000,000 is probably a pocket change for them. Does your feedback matter at that point? They don’t need your money, they don’t need you back for future project, because if you won’t shop up to back the project and they won’t to do it, it is no biggie. As a backer you don’t replace higher ups and investors. PoE1 sold great. Deadfire apparently didn’t, but got successfully crowdfunded. There is no need to “convince” Microsoft that there is interest in those titles. Now, it all depends and what their proprieties are - and that none of us is able to change. I will be shocked if any future Obsidian games won’t be locked to windows.

Endless Paths are sort of meant to be tackled continuesly throughout the game. Early on will find it difficult if you go too far, and it is a good sign to leave it, level up and return later on. If you wait, until you will be able to complete all (or most) of the dungeon the early levels will be extremely boring by that point. What I do, is try to get as deep as I can soon after getting access to it, and poping back every few levels throughout the game, when I want to break away from the main story.

"You, as a backer, give money and receive the game as reward" That's incorrect. What you describe is a pre-order. As a backer, you offer money for the project, which the party organizing the crowdfunding has presented to you. Sure, ideally, you want to see the pitched project become reality and receive the final product - most common motivation for backers is to get their hands on said product. However, being a backer doesn't guarantee that you will get that product, or that it will be in the form that was originally pitched. Depending on the project you might get your money back, you might get some kind of product, you might forget that the project exists, until someone reminds you of it (cough, Mandate, cough). Does Microsoft need money to be able to fund PoE3? No. If Microsoft doesn't care to produce PoE3, even though they can afford it, do I trust them that they will care, if consumers pour their money into the game even before the project was created? No. Do I trust Microsoft to keep creative integrity of the project, and put player experience first, before making business decisions, like adding undesirable features, limiting platform on which game will be released, or taking resources away from the niche title if it suits them? No. Microsoft is Obsidian's owner and publisher. Their job is to fund and advertise games and profit from their sales. They bought Obsidian, most likely have a power to dictate (or choose not dictate) what Obsidian, can/will do, decide what platforms they will release on, and how their business model will look like, and the OP suggests that consumers should take the responsibility of funding a game for them? Now, I do hope that the Obsidian's aquisition happened with mutual understanding and that games Obsidian wants to make are games Microsoft wants them to make. I do wish for PoE3 to have place someplace in that understanding. But Obsidian's position has changed, because it is not Obsidian who is calling shots anymore - or in the best case scenario, has a boss which allows them to do as they please, but still has power to change their course if they wish to do so. Trusting folks at Obsidian is just a part of potential crowdfunding - you have to trust Microsoft as well. Would you crowdfund Disney to produce a movie you like? Or EA? By crowdfunding you don't get rights to the title, nor have real influence on its direction. All you can do is hope that the party you gave your money to will held up its end of the bargain, and that they will be interested in listening to your feedback. And it will be a sad day, indeed, if publishers will start extorting money from consumers, even before the production of the game started. Didn't that happen with Shenmue III already? "Give us money so Sony will be kind to allow me to work on a game for them?" We will see how this one will turn out.

Sorry, Obsidian isn’t an independent studio anymore. While I am happy to support developers I trust, I am not willing to create risk free environment for a major corporation. And that is exactly what a crowdfunded PoE3 would be - a fan funded project from which Microsoft can only benefit. If PoE3 would be funded via crowdfuding I would see it as a major abuse of their fans and wouldn’t support them in it. If Microsoft will invest into “niche” title I am interested in, I will support it by purchasing it (as long as it is released on an acceptable platform). They can afford to take risks and have a varied library of games.

Don’t worry, we might be on a verge of the Great Storefront War instead. Exciting times.

If you remember colonial duels then you lived for far longer then I did. It might also explain why you resurrected a thread which was dead for a year and a half - for us mortals the conversation is long dead.