Bos_hybrid

Planescape and Fallout 1&2 and NV (which you curiously omitted)were my favourites.

How is this a good idea? VO takes talent, that's why they get paid. It's like throwing some guy from the street into ManU goals and expecting him to stop shots.

Cheers, Gothic 2 was the only one I could say I really enjoy, Risen wasn't bad though. Will pick it up tomorrow.

Great news.

Then they would effectively have to balance 2 different games. Balance for those with and those without party members.

Nothing wrong with Linux support as a stretch goal.

PE was my 3rd kickstarter pledge, but easily my most expensive. Wasteland 2 and Dead State were the others.

So worth getting at half price? I seen it at my local games store and couldn't decide.

I would think it would match Wasteland 2 and DF adventure game. So 3.5mil is what I'm hoping for.

There are 36,000 backers at the moment. Your lucky if there are 20-40 people posting about romances. Hmmm, youu certainly seem to be the only one that _really_ hates romances and prefers having fap-masters in the game. Wrong. Plenty of other have posted they don't want romances. At least read others posts if your going to post. Let's throw baseless assumptions at each other. I'm pretty confident 35,999 crave for romances deep inside. I base this fact on...oh wait. You posted this: Which it isn't not, not by a long shot. And old school RPGs didn't have romances, right? See, mate. I'm not for or against romances. I'm indifferent towards them. But people here seem to be either completely for or against them with only some who don't mind well-written and developed optional "emotional attachments" towards a companion. They were also small projects too yes. I believe when inflation is accounted for BG2 budget was $7mil, likely twice that of PE. Cuts have to be made somewhere. Also correct me if I wrong but BG2 had 2 male romances and 1 female, and no homosexual romances. That ain't enough for the romancers of today, they want equality(fair enough), so now Obs has to make 2 male pc romances, 2 female romances, and 2 homosexual romances. Because if they don't they are ignoring the female and gay gamers. So what was once 3 now becomes 6. So now not only is PE budget half of BG2, they've got to double the romances. And for those reasons I say ignore them.

There are 36,000 backers at the moment. Your lucky if there are 20-40 people posting about romances. The whole point of PE is to be an old school RPGs. Which interests those that liked the old school rpgs. What make you think everyone that likes BG2, likes romances. What makes you think that none of the BG2 fans likes romances? Never said that, you implied people that like BG2, like romances.

I wouldn't mind a destroy the world plot. But I know I'm in the minority there.

What make you think everyone that likes BG2, likes romances. Nah, we don't do burnings here. Crucifixions on the other hand....... Listen if this was a $20 mil project, I wouldn't be posting about not wanting them in. But it's not, at most the budget will be.... $3-4mil. So that leaves a very small amount of resources for an RPG. I would just like to see the resources spent elsewhere.

I would like to see this as an option. Maybe a stretch goal.

Or you can accept the fact that just because some of you like romances, doesn't mean we all do. And just as you are able to clamor for it being in, others can clamor for it not being implemented. Then all you have to do is tell your companions to **** off if you don't like it - or better yet don't even flirt with them at all. Problem solved. And how does that change the fact that PE resources were wasted on them? Simply because you don't enjoy a part of the game or choose not to experience it does not mean that resources were wasted on it. It's not easy to make content that pleases everyone, To me it's a waste, to you it's not. Opinions opinions. We aren't on the bio boards.

Then all you have to do is tell your companions to **** off if you don't like it - or better yet don't even flirt with them at all. Problem solved. And how does that change the fact that PE resources were wasted on them?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No romances. So many more important things, so little resources. Or alternatively Obs, make it a stretch goal of 5-7 million. That way if you don't reach that number everyone understands they aren't going to be in it, and if you do get it, well that is 2-3 times what you really wanted, so it shouldn't impact on the other more important things in Eternity. I would also run down the street naked if you reached that number*.

No. Unless you can chose who bites it, or it can be avoided by previous choices. Not what I meant. I don't want to have NPC dying because of overall plot (like in NWN2, for example), but what I wrote in the second part of that paragraph. Use companion's death as a quest starter (even a tiny one), not use quests to kill arbitrarily definied NPCs. Sorry, poor wording on my part. Ah, that's fine. Gives an incentive to not reload(for those that do), even give the player XP for doing it.

No. Unless you can chose who bites it, or it can be avoided by previous choices.

The game is PC only.

Agree with most of the post however: Just not going to happen, do you realize how much VA costs? Besides they've already said it going to be there as flavor only. (minimal amount) This doesn't look like it's happening. Everything said points to the IE engine fixed isometric view. It's PC only. So no need to be optimized. No need for this. Cinematics are very expensive. Again small budget, this isn't going to be Crysis 3.

Just don't design it so what weapons and armor the PC can equip is based on class. Skill base it and add +&- modifiers to different weapons and armor.

Agreed. Fights become more interesting when there is a chance your meat shield might not get back up.

I chose other purely because I went a blend of stat based, and reaction based. Skill/Stat based, the usual charm/intimidate etc. (Or something more interesting if Obs can come up with it) But I also want to see reactivity based on previous actions/decisions. Basic example: A quest earlier has you killing a barman named Bob. Later on you meet John, a mercenary who is Bob's brother. No amount of speech checks can stop a fight ensuing. Tying dialogue options to attributes only limit dialogue options if your purposedly made a character that has low points in everything. Only if the dialog system is built that way. Tying dialogue options to attributes does whatever the person programming it wants it to do. R-P-G, sound it out. What does that have to do with anything? If I'm roleplaying a character I want it to be as realistic as possible. I want actions and relationships to determine what I can say and how I can say it, not some number on an arbitrarily linear scale. If I want to play a lying son of a ***** as my character, I don't whether people believe me to depend on a bluff stat I choose at the beginning of the game. I want whether people believe me or not to depend on what lengths I go to convince them within the game. I want to build a character, so stat based is better. Some people are great liars, some aren't, so If you want your character to be everything, just cheat engine the skills. I would also like to see speech failures, as in the pc tries to lie, but the NPC calls the PC on it's bull. That should still happen sometimes. But should not replace speech skills.