Chairchucker

Hope not, doesn't seem to fit the tone of the game, and also I hate them in general, I've never encountered such a system that wasn't horribly unfun.

Who's bored enough to go through and actually write down all the info about the game? Me. It's me, I am. Microsoft purchase has no bearing on game. 'Next generation of a throwback RPG.' Approx 20% of team worked on NV. Approx 3% of team worked on FO1&2. No 3rd person. Yes putting gun down. No radio. White chocolate is in the game as an enemy (maybe this is just a joke but maybe it's a joke and also an actual thing that's in the game.) No intelligent aliens, yes alien lifeforms. There's a day night cycle. Takes place in our galaxy. There are 2 'outer worlds' but also moons and dwarf planets and gas giants and space stations and asteroids. All worlds you travel to have breathable atmosphere. (No needing to get a spacesuit or whatever.) They are hoping there will be DLC. There will not be microtransactions. They're pretty sure there's 4K console support. Releasing on Steam, PS4 and XBone. They're 'talking about' NG+. They're going to look into modding support after shipping. FTL travel works by getting close to light speed and then 'moving at a discontinuous velocity' to skip past light speed. Player has to be human. Physical character creator has presets and sliders. It is possible to make a character that looks like a walking nightmare. You choose the name of your character; crew members address you as Captain or Boss. No power armour but there is heavy armour. You 'effectively' put points into skills at the start of the game, and someone comments on every choice you make. No morality, yes reputation. They 'hope' you can beat it without killing anyone. You can beat it having killed everyone. Joinable factions. It appears shooting people in different body locations garners an appropriate reaction. No children in game. There's hacking, but no minigame. There's emails in the game but they're not called emails. Game is funny. You don't need to have companions. Each companion has a specific side quest which improves their combat ability. In Supernova difficulty companions can permanently die. Companions can't ruin stealth. You can't romance them because they didn't wanna make romance an option. Some companions would be 'hard to flirt with.' They declined to answer about whether all the companions were human. Tim's favourite companion is as yet unrevealed. (It's a robot, right? P. sure there's a robot companion.) They're not yet revealing the name of the spaceship if there is one. You can't upgrade it. There are laser weapons. You can't tame any alien creatures, but you can get robots to turn on each other. They don't have what they're calling 'boss fights' but they have encounters designed to be more difficult. There's about 24 flaws, you can have 3 in one game, or 4 on hard or 5 on supernova. Leonard does not believe it contains any fart jokes. Lots of endings. Ending slides. They have a solid write up and a couple other ideas for a potential sequel. No chance of co-op in this or a sequel. No celebrity cameos in the game at the moment. Definitely coming out in 2019, Tim Cain guarantees it personally.

There was some useful stuff there. Like for example, they confirmed it was coming out on Steam, so no Epic exclusive.

Apparently someone was a bit indiscreet with the Game Informer article so why wait. https://imgur.com/a/1baQE79

If you don't like Ellie, it seems like there will be other party members available. That said, most games that have party members available are more difficult if you choose to play without those party members, so IMO yeah you'll probably find it harder.

*bangs cutlery on table and chants over and over again* Archer Protocol! Archer Protocol! Archer Protocol! Archer Protocol! Archer Protocol! Archer Protocol!

I enjoyed IWD (and the sequel) but found the stories super forgettable. I think the linearity didn't help in this regard; plot progression that consisted of 'talk to only available quest giver, clear out only available area, return to quest giver to complain that the thing you were looking for wasn't there,' didn't particularly excite me. Given the paper thin NPC interaction, I'd absolutely characterise it as a 'simple dungeon crawler.' Not that that's necessarily bad. IWD2 was actually one of the IE games that I found the most replayable, but that was almost entirely down to the fact that levelling up 3E characters is way more engaging than levelling up 2E characters.

I'm not convinced it would 100% prevent them from making a D&D game if they had an idea they liked - after all, they were still kinda keen on making a Star Wars: Knights of the New Republic game semi-recently - but I remember someone saying that they appreciated having their own IPs because they had full creative control. Also with their own IP there's no licensing fees or anything. I still want Archer Protocol tho.

I got the impression that one of the reasons they kinda liked moving away from D&D games is not being bound by the restraints of someone else's IP.

Hell yeah Wizardry 8 rules. Might and Magic games were also turn based first person. The ones I played that were any good, anyway.

They can't because there isn't enough money in their budget and they shouldn't for the same reason.

Obsidian has been pretty OK with Linux releases in the past haven't they?

Ah, my mistake then.

Obsidian don't own Pillars of Eternity, it's owned by some other company which is owned by Feargus. So Microsoft don't own that, but will probably still be able to make games in that universe if they want.

1. No one here seems like they'll be provoked by romances, the overwhelming response from the 'anti-romance' side is 'haven't really seen romance done particularly well in the past, so I'd just as soon see them use resources elsewhere, especially if they're not that enthusiastic about them.' 2. You hope in vain, they've already said they're not having romances.

Truly. I've snipped the rest of your post because it is long and quote pyramids are annoying, but I'm gonna refer to a couple other parts of it. Firstly, to address the latter part of your post, where you started to talk about genres other than RPGs, I was not really considering games like point and click adventure games to be examples of games that gave you options as you were describing them. Firstly because, let's face it, in most point and click adventure games each problem has exactly one solution, the only notable exceptions I can think of being Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, where you get a choice at a key point in the game which means you're now playing in one of three distinctive ways, or King's Quest 6, where there were two paths you could go (but I only ever found one of them.) Secondly, because I understand the conversation to be framed in the context of RPGs. I mean let's face it, these days there are still games like The Sims or Cities Skylines or Bejeweled or Peggle and heaps of others where you don't have to kill stuff, but they're not really relevant to what I understood the conversation to be about. Of the RPGs I played in the 90s, the Fallouts (1 and 2, not Tactics or whatever that PS2 shooter was) were the only prominent examples I could think of where a pacifist run was possible, and in those cases it was a novelty. It was like finishing FONV in 15 minutes. Sure, it's technically possible, but you pretty much have to have advanced knowledge of the game and take advantage of that knowledge to preplan your character the exact way it could be done. If you thought you were gonna be a diplomat and talk your way out of all the violence, you were all the way out of luck. Baldur's Gate, I recall having for the most part no more choice than Pillars of Eternity. Other prominent 90s RPGs I remember playing are things like Wizardry 8, Diablo, Lands of Lore, Might and Magic, Freedom Force. I like all of these games, but I don't really recall any of them being set up to allow multiple solutions to problems. By contrast, more recent games like Alpha Protocol and Pillars of Eternity have IMO a lot more choice and better reactivity to your choices.

Your recollection of the options in most 90s games diverges wildly from mine.

I'm not really a fan of the writing for Kills in Shadows, but I think that's more of a reflection on my reaction to the writing for beastmen in general. I like both Bleden Mark and Xoti.

Dunno but it shows up on Steam now, so you can wishlist it and it'll probably update you when you're allowed to lob money at them.

Probably not, but it's already clear that's the tone they're aiming for so you may have to prepare for disappointment.

Uh, you may want to reread the OP.

Do you have examples of things she's written that you feel is 'like a highschooler'?

Ah yes, having backer written content has been flawless in the past.

It's possible to read it slightly differently, IMO. I see it as a definite no on mods and just a probable no on third person camera, as he didn't explicitly say 'no third person camera', just juxtaposed the comments about 'we'd love to have things like this in the game' and 'we may not be able to get everything out of the gate on the first game'.