Wombat

But this is false, the Kickstarter was started on the premise of "By the Infinity Engine gamers, for the Infinity Engine gamers", so I don't really know where you are coming from with that statement. My personal experience of playing some PnP RPGs and the way some of Obsidian devs kept the tradition of introducing PnP essences into CRPGs. In fact, while being counted as Infinity Engine games, Planescape: Torment was totally of it's own. However, while it was counted as one of memorable CRPGs. Keeping the tradition is not frigidly keeping a certain format without any critical thinking or trying possible new approaches to enhance a certain existing factors, IMHO. Of course, you could argue whatever at your end but my opinion is mine.

Actually, I like dev's approach of "just be you" or "pretend to be a different personality" or role-playing. If you are interested in EXP, there are many other CRPGs, which allow you grind to your heart's content. For a story-focused role-playing game, the implementation makes sense.

Yeah, these became the hot keys which I press very often. According to Kaz, they "will be adding more obvious ways of toggling it in future updates." To the devs: As for actual implementation, how about something similar to old audio/visual buttons since they seem to be recognized by "correctly recognised by 75% of a sample of European consumers", according to wiki (BTW, why only European?) although it appears less familiar to younger generations. Could you let the players assign keys to intended groups? For example, it would be nice if I could assign different hot keys to a ranged characters and melee characters, respectively. Just my two cents.

Whatsoever was it internally called, it could have been better if it had been introduced as alpha to the public. The video presentations seem to have given wrong impression to some people and there appear to be even a common marketing ploy where some devs call more polished products as beta and release them under Steam Early Access. To me, I'm basically happy with the way this project is shaping up as usual. It's nice of PoE team to let the backers experience the feel of the actual game-play by choosing relatively spoiler-free areas, minimizing the risk of diminishing the enjoyment by the finished product.

I don't feel the drag'n drop ritual fascinating or worthy of spending time. I thought, at least, crafting items were sorted under a separate window. If there is no tactical importance in the limited inventory, I'd rather like to have an infinite one since, at the current state, its main function appears to be just wasting time. If the game cannot give meaningful choices (such as selecting equipment) to the stash and the individual inventory system, making an unlimited inventory would be nice. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not against resource management in general-the limited rest supply system, for example, but I find the current inventory system is more of wasting time than offering interesting choices. One thing I could say for the individual inventories is that they remind me what items I wanted to let each character use when I put them in his/her individual inventory. As a side note, a loot all button would be nice.

In , Adam plays like a different person. He didn't even try to pause and let the wizard execute a trick to save himself but in the Twitch session but he saved the rouge just in time. Why five member party (instead of six)? The fighter seems to be capable of holding line but the paladin doesn't seem to be as good as the fighter is. Due to the aura ability, I would probably like to have a paladin in the middle of the party, while giving it long-reach/ranged weapons, probably side by side with a priest. I'd like to have another fighter or a monk (with its wounds ability) for the possible sixth slot. Is the reason why Adam let the fighter use the arbalest (BTW, nice animation!) rather than holding the ogre is that it is hard for even a fighter to hold it? For, form the look of it, he didn't use the same tactics as he used for the spider-instead, he tried not to let the ogre focus on a single target-at least, till it finally caught the paladin (and subsequently brought quite a punishment to her). Nice that I didn't see kiting (probably thanks to the recovery mechanism) but I still suspect that the ranged might turn out to be quite dominant as long as the players manage to exploit the opponent AI by, for instance, surrounding a single opponent. Also, waiting to see how the ranger-animal companion combination would work out, too (I mean, the animal companions are melee and share their vitality resource with the rangers). Paladin's Zealous Charge felt like a must. Is there any other way to speed up the whole party, at least, while they are in safe areas? Is that possible for the players to check the combat log after the party being defeated?

As for balancing among ability scores, actually, it's been very obvious if you read the devs' posts related with ability scores… I don't know why a part of people overlook the obvious point: The devs are making the game based on their own rules and they can adjust them in a way they like. They made a solid basis during the pre-production period so that they can only need to adjust variables later. I think they are currently optimizing the system while test-playing and, if some people want to join the process, they can do it with a cost with the upcoming beta. They sound quite confident, too. On topic, in PnP experience, the players can interpret the ability score by themselves and arrange it as a part of role-playing but, in CRPG, it's the devs who come up with the actual lines. Personally, I'd assign points to ability scores just for party chemistry and I may find it rather annoying at times if the devs try to define the PC through the stats. So, even if there are choices based on ability scores, I'll probably avoid them when I don't feel it fits my image of the PC.

Talking of balancing, my current impression is the contrary: Since the system is well designed, the players don’t need to think about how they should play. It's not balance for balance's shake but, a decision which tries to make different choices by the players valid without making things too complex. A certain people seem to be enthusiastically attached to some specific rule sets but there have been being tons of them around under different design philosophies. In fact, the concept of quest-based XP is quite old now. I tend to like rule sets with unified vision and I think PoE is doing well in this respect-well, while not going far from IE format, at least.

If people™ were rational, they wouldn't spend their time or money on something like games. So, it's good for you. The XP system didn't bother me in the slightest since I know I'll spend my time on what I find fun to me. Heck, it's a single player game.

As for the 3D model in the character creation, I suspected there must be some psychological aspects involved in this "issue" and I checked out some of the character creation video clips of BG/IWD series. , , , , The players are seeing mainly the portraits during the character creation processes although there are, indeed, customization screens for paper dolls. Maybe, could it be more desirable for the devs to go for this route rather than fighting against the eyes of the players which may be accustomed to the today's standard built by more graphic-heavy games with much higher budgets?

The relatively low-res 3D character models for today's standard at closer look seem to be a common criticism to Wasteland 2. Personally, I'm not a great fan of old 3D models and, indeed, the character models in these games remind me of them if you ask me. However, what the players are going to see is the 2D sceneries and these character models from a distance-from the perspective for the main game play, personally, I think they look great. Also, in my personal case, my brains seem to regard them as something equivalent to miniatures in table top games and see them just as interfaces for tactical gameplay rather than something can be called "avatars." Naturally, in terms of appearance, my main inspiration for imaging characters relies on the portraits (So, no invisible mustache, please). In any case, that's what I used to see in IE games, where the animated 2D models whose faces were impossible to identify and I think the low-res models shouldn't be much of a problem for most people who played these games in PoE, either. That said, indeed, even for single player first person games like the Elder Scroll series (Can be switched to over-the-shoulder third person view, though), character appearance mods seem to be quite popular although the players won't see their characters in most of their playtime. So, I guess the recent and/or video gamers might take them more seriously as their "avatars."

Actually, it starts with "s." To me, this sounds like modern economic approach than being cultural-if it were implemented in Gloranthan setting, it could be used for religious rituals (for example, calling spirits in special occasions, something equivalent to Halloween, which itself considered as Celtic origin-some of inspirations for Oranthi). Then again, considering the existence of various cultures in PoE, I wouldn't be surprised if these cultures see various uses for such material. BTW, while I admit trollball is rather over-the-top, the biology of trolls and trollkin settings were well-done, IMO.

Maybe something like trollball? Well, I guess something like that would be too over-the-top for PoE...

Just for the record, there is a disposition system, which tracks the personality of the PC in more varied ways. This could be tied to bonuses and penalties. In fact, Holy Radiance, a priest's ability of healing allies and damaging "undead" can be adjusted by the dispositions favored by the deity which the players chose at the character making process. Likewise, there may be items which are blessed by a certain deity which may as well give bonuses/penalties based on the disposition of the characters. That said, judging from the implementation of Holy Radiance, I've gotten an impression that, while there seems to be a function like "alignment", the devs seem to avoid putting any heavy restriction on how the players play the game just like other design decisions in the game.

Yeah, it came to me that there might be some special customizations for each class in the crafting mechanic since it would not force class restrictions on the players while allowing them to customize their items further based on the classes of their characters (This would allow "Holy Avenger" to exist without privileging just the paladin class). For, with the soul setting of PoE, this kind of crafting wouldn't be monopolized by magic user classes. A possible downside would be that it may not play well with the respecing option, though.

Just couldn't but notice Anthony D is making his own playgound while some of their colleagues answering questions.

It's been a while you mentioned crafting systems-will there be an update in that respect in near future? I understand the concerns. How about introducing class specific enchantment options in the crafting system? For example, paladins/priests/monks may be able to enhance their weapons through rituals like binding "holy" spirits on them and/or taking an oath while someone like Druid may bind elemental spirits on them (Especially, paladin's case, this option can let the players make their own version of so-called "Holy Avenger"). Rangers may have some additional enchantment related with their animal companions. Traditionally, wizard has their ways to add additional values on the existing items. Even fighters can have their specific layer of crafting due to the soul setting although these cases may feel less dramatic, compared with religion/belief-based classes. It would be nice to have a function where the players are allowed to combine their attachment to the classes of their characters with some unique items they found during adventuring. I think, the soul setting can be a good excuse for such function. Just my two cents.

Considering the world of PoE is at the edge of transition, some might be interested in this BBC documentary about a role of symbolism/iconoclast/vandalism, upon which I stumbled today.

I've read such words quite often in these boards but how many of us will actually support if Obsidian crowd-fund text-heavy game? Once Urquhart came up with a Sci-Fi RPG with Skyrim-ish gameplay and Obsidian content, aiming at somewhere around Star Citizen level of funding (around thirty mil., compared with 4 mil. PoE). How much are you going to pay for that or do you want other people (including publishers and investors) pay for such game? Considering Obsidian's strength is their content, I don't like the idea of letting Obsidian compete against AAA games, which seems to be enough risky. Personally, I'd like Obsidian to make games with more low-budget gameplay and rich content, while employing solid "rule-sets." In fact, the only reason I asked Obsidian to make action-RPG hybrid games in the past was that it was the only option for Obsidian to survive at that time.

Not at the very top of the list and I wonder how it will last. At least, at the moment, the most recommended Steam review gives a healthy dose of caution, with which I won't disagree. Also, I'm not against opinions that these new trends such as Early Access and crowd-funding will need some time testing, at all. However, at the same time, I don't think conventional publisher model is healthy. Personally, I just hope something like PoE or other crowd-funding games humble success, which just allows the devs to live on. Money can be a good motivation but, at the same time, it can ruin intimal motives, too, in many different ways.

Actually, that's exactly my point. Why do some people appear to spend their money on DLC business, while they criticize this? Electronic Arts, under which Bioware is, is infamous of that. So, from my point of view, you are stating things just reversely. What we are saying is basically same, at least, as far as the similiarity of the system. That said, if some people are willing to spend their money on alpha testing, it's their money and their own judgement. If they know what they will have, then, how could you think they are being "exploited"? Also, I doubt there are too many people who would pay $100 for it.

Sounds bit nitpicky to my ears. However, indeed, probably, it was Darklands, which is also one of personal fav of the lead designer of PoE. In fact, he is so much fan of the game that he seems to be backing a Kickstarter project, which appears to have a similar gameplay.

I'm not sure about IWD-ish game but, indeed, I wonder if there is a chance that Obsidian/InXile work on games based on similar mechanic with different directions/content for upcoming years. As far as my limited knowledge on game development goes, for a complex monster like CRPG, it would be reasonable to make the olde route of Infinity Engine games/NWN. Means, crowd-fund the basic system and build/let the community build content around it for upcoming years so that they can sell olde style expansions for a few to several years. The model fits a company like Obsidian, which is more valued by their content and it is more rational than building things from scratch every time. If they are successful in satisfying enough people for years, they may be able to still make another crowd-funding campaign once the basic system become obsolete. That said, after all, everything is upto Obsidian, though.

If they were actually willing to exploit Early Access, then, wouldn't it be unwise for them to tell that the price will go down at the release? To my eyes, they only need to have dedicated fans who understand alpha testing. Personally, I wouldn't pay a hundred bucks for GCIII but, I paid more than that for PoE and another project, though. How could we have objective standards for the price of our subjective fun? Some people even don't understand why we pay for a game at all, which is nothing but waste of time for them. There have always been being those who would get scornful of the fact I play video games. In fact, the majority who directly know me don't know the fact since I won't tell…Kickstarter? Probably they would think I must be mad or, at best, childish. In any case, one of the reasons why I began to find visiting so-called RPG fan boards is less worth my time, most of people who spend their time on browsing internet boards don't seem to pay much to support developers. I don't know what you value in your lives but do you really know enough to laugh at other people who put their efforts/money based on different interests? You can just let those "fools" spend their own earnings/time and wait and see a few to several years to get your bargain at humble bundle or any other digital sale? The thing is, every single time you write negative comments about EA and crowd-funding while aimlessly browsing nets, you would discourage others and less chance to get your clever bargain rather than more. If you are happy with the publisher deals, it won't be a problem, though. In fact, as a pricing pattern, is it so different from pre-order pricing and digital sale pricing few years later in the conventional model? If you have a problem with the current pricing of a game, why not just wait and see?

It's true. From a relatively recent post of Sawyer at SAF What I meant in my previous post was a possible implementation in which some people including me suggested to make a skill based game with class templates to make both IE and FO1/2 crowds happy. Instead, they clearly went for the distinct class route, while keeping skill system out of combat (well, at least, directly-stealth skill can be helpful to take advantage before combat starts, for example, as you know). -Off Topic- You might be more interested in a different part of the same post. Although Sawyer didn't say anything about "level-less," personally, I'd be more interested in supporting such project than the possible Sci-fi Skyrim clone Feargus mentioned while back. The project sounded like more of business talk, which is unlikely supported by many of those who backed the crowd-funding project, IMO.