Dermi

OK, I'll try one more time. Having quests that can fail if not completed in given time (in-game time, NOT real world time) can add to immershun, because it creates feeling of living world. Even if it's made up, fantasy world it still has it's own rules and it needs to maintain them to be internally coherent. If, for example, game lore tells that only elves can be wizards, because they're more in tune with world and it lets them manipulate it on higher level, then you simply don't introduce dwarven wizard, only because it's cool from narrative point of view. And if you do, expect players to look at it and tell "What the f*** is this s***?! Game contradicts itself!". The same thing goes with quest timers. It's a given that in every world there is passage of time - all IE games had day/night cycle, so they acknowledged time is passing. Now, if some quest is told to be urgent (that kidnapped maiden example, beaten to death in this thread) and yet game doesn't stick to sense of urgency created by narrative, it's a) not internally coherent and shows that world is not living but merely a sandbox for player to play in and nothing will happen without gamer's input, and b) being urgent is plain LARPing, and not role-playing, because game doesn't acknowledge in any way if player made it on time or not. Also, Stun argued several times that introducing quest timers is bad, because quest starts only when player activate them, thus world is still waiting for player to happen. That's partially true, but it's a result of our technology. Game has to have limited pool of quests player can do, because no one is able to generate additional quests at will to have infinite number of them to accommodate for every possible scenario. That way we acknowledge that game is limited medium, but it doesn't have to be incoherent with it's own internal logic. So yes, it's OK to have bandits waiting with kidnapping maiden for player to start the quest, but it's not OK to have them wait for the eternity for player to come and rescue the maiden, because it just takes from the world and makes it unbelievable. Also, I haven't seen anyone here arguing that time based quest should be mandatory. We're merely saying that if (and that's a big IF) there is quest or two, where sense of urgency is imposed on player through narrative, then game mechanics should adhere to it and even, yes, make player fail the quest if it takes him too long. Who said you need that perfect 100% of accomplished quests? You failed one quest out of forty? Bad luck, go back playing and deal with consequences. And BTW, Stun, you also argued that Torment was a masterpiece and it didn't have time-based quests, therefore Project Eternity also doesn't need them. But Torment also didn't include elves of dwarves, yet they're confirmed to be in Eternity's world. How can you live with that? Or, what about class-specific quests? Are you OK with not having access to quest only because you're a warrior and not mage? Does it take away from your "roleplaying experience" or not?

What you describe is a matter of bad quest design, not quest timer. Devs should know when such quest should be placed and it should be balanced so every class should be able to accomplish it. If it's otherwise, it's design failure, simply as that.

So let's change situation a bit and do not talk about urgency.Let's say that in game quest-giver will tell you he's happy with you and is paying you 1000 gold (narrative), while your character doesn't receive any money (narrative doesn't have support in game mechanics). That's the same level of narrative having no consequences in actual gameplay, but I have a feeling you won't be that happy with the outcome.

No, gameplay should support narrative or the other way around. As it was stated couple of time already, there is this bold concept of actions having consequences. Moonlight Butterfly, for example, is starting to understand the overall concept that is discussed here: if your character learns through narrative that urgent action is required, then gameplay should support that and have you deal with consequences of you not making it in time. If someone tells you that you need to do something in two days, you can: a) agree, do required action in two days and have it done. b) tell him right away to get lost, because you're busy smelling flowers. c) agree and do required action a month later. If c) is not supported through gameplay, then narrative was just phoney and the bit about urgency was outright lie. Maybe you're comfortable with game telling you "You need to do it quick! But easy, you have all the time in the world", but I'm not (and many others in this thread). The whole deal is, that if some side quest are written as urgent, then there should be some consequences for not making them in time. Otherwise, why even bother with sounding them as urgent, when they're not?

I wouldn't call it immersion, just world's logic. If an NPC is killable, then kid should to, because that's the rule that applies to ALL NPCs. If kids should be unkillable, then devs have to come up with some additional mechanism for making children invulnerable, and it's a waste of resources plus it defiles world's logic and realism (I mean, not *our* world's realism, but game's world). Even if it's made-up world, there are still some rules applied to it, as you said.

I think it's simply because they don't understand the implications of using an engine for the game and just associate whole engine with it's most prominent part, which is rendering engine. It was pointed out several times in this thread that it's not the engine that dictates what the game will look like, it's the people behind the game. And, since Unity is apparently cheap engine to get (compared to other options, like Unreal Engine or Cry Engine), there is a lot of poor-man's 2D or 3D cartoony games, which makes people think "It's what PE will look like?! Abomination! HATE! RAGE!!". I think Obsidian should really stress that aspect in their update.

It usually works like this: Kickstarter won't charge your card until project is succesfully funded and time for the project is up. So, Kickstarter will take your money for Project Eternity on 16th October and no sooner. PayPal, on the other hand, charges card immediately after making a donation, so it would be very hard and time consuming to work refunds IF Kickstarter project would end with not enough money. Because of that, companies usually wait to have succesfully funded project on Kickstarter and then can setup PayPal account, so they are sure the project will be funded and won't have to deal with PayPal refunds. Also, I don't see a point in having separate funds from Kickstarter and PayPal, given both are for the same goal, which is funding the project, so money from Kickstarter and donated through PayPal are added into one, common pool. That way, funds from Kickstarter and PayPal make one, general amount of funds project will receive. BUT, Kickstarter as a service doesn't take into account money gathered with PayPal, it's up to devs to do the math

The way I see it, yes, but a base layer everything is build upon.

I'm not exactly gaming tech person, but from what I gather, the "engine", as Unity is referred to, is a base code that keeps all the stuff together, ie. it does calculations which object should be where, but exact display of the object is a task for graphics engine. Unity, as a whole, governs all subsystems, like, let's say physics engine (Unity does base calculations and tell physics what needs to be calculated for collisions), pathfinding system (again, Unity tell susbstem that this objects moves from there to there, calculate optimal path for it) and graphics system (Unity tell graphics system where should be objects displayed and in what orientation). Graphics system is just another, smaller engine, that does all calcuations specific just for graphics (ie. shaders, textures, lights, and so on), based on infomation received from main engine. In other words, base engine (like Unity) has nothing to do with art style (cartoony or not), because it's strictly a matter of people who program the engine which way they want to go.

Exactly. Neverwinter Nights ran on Aurora and looked like this: CDProjekt RED licensed Aurora for their game and first Witcher looked like this: Engine is, after all, the base that every system runs on. Visual style and rendering method doesn't have that much in common with base engine.

Its' right there, on Project's Kickstarter page: , in section Game Details. It's going to be real-time with pause (similar to Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale or Planescape: Torment).

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. edit: So, like I said before, it may be like this, that resurrection spell must be specifically tailored for dead person and will require different components for different NPCs. That way we could have "death quest" tied to specific NPCs and after getting that component we would be able to revive them. Of course it would get boring to do it every time, so there might be two ways: we get the spell permanently, so after the quest we are able to revive NPCs without additional hassle, or the could be that second death is truly permanent We ran out of required component and there is not way to bring someone back. Or maybe souls of NPCs became to weak to get them back after second death. Just speculating, since we don't know anything about spell and death system, after all.

OK, but what will stop you from reloading then, just because you don't want to have those NPCs crippled? Is it any different then reloading after a death of one of companions? Let's be honest - unless there will be save system from rougelikes (save only on exit), save/reload will be used exactly to achieve best possible outcome. Maybe not by all, but it will be. What about tying deaths to some quests? I mean, make some additional quests for bringing NPCs back, or have some specific requirements to meet before resurrecting them (like getting this very rare resurrection spell component, or something)? It could contribute to enrich the game even more, IMHO.

And that actually exhausts the subject. I would only add reputation to that list. And that way we're in player's heaven and implementer's hell

I hope that PE won't have this lately popular mechanic that until whole party dies, nobody actually die. If a party member is killed, then he/she should stay that way until resurrected (if there will be such mechanic at all). Otherwise, it can lead to neglecting party members' deaths, because in the end they will simply stand up and dust off, ready to go further, so you don't have to work that hard to keep them alive. But, if exploring the dungeon you have take in the account, that after one NPC dying your whole party becomes crippled (i.e. your melee fighter or wizard is dead and can't perform his duties), then it's completely different story. Yes, I know that probably having NPC "knocked out" at the end of the fight will revive them with almost none hit points, but still it's different to fight boss with only two party members instead of six (I'm making the numbers up ), compared to fighting the same boss with full party, maybe only a litlle weaker. Oh, and there should be perma-death

I might even consider upping my pledge for that (and live to the next payday on plasters from the wall ).

Using D&D ruleset would probably mean acquiring rights from Hasbro/WotC and that would mean giving them rights to meddle with game design, because they're the rightholders and in the end it's their words that matter. The whole idea of Kickstarter is (to me) avoiding exactly this situation and have full creative control over the game, which would be impossible with licensed ruleset. Not to mention license fees they would have to pay for using the ruleset. So no, I don't think they consider anything else besides their own houserules. Josh Sawyer and Tim Cain are said to bo working on mechanics for some time, so let them have their fun.

Problem with voice acting is that at some point you need to lock text down and start recording audio sessions. And during that time you don't have that much of manouver possibility when some parts of dialogues should be changed/corrected/expanded. What Infinity games have done right that was voice-acting approach: only *some* lines for major characters had a voice-over, to let player know what kind of voice NPC had, but rest of dialogue was only written, so it could be changed easily later. And yet it still let you "hear" the voice of character speaking (imagination is a funny thing). So I hope Obsidian will go that route with voice-acting - I don't need to hear *every* line of dialogue, I read faster

Actually, I'm not sure if that would be Torment's spiritual successor at all. In that article/interview where Chris was talking about how he would've done it, he also immediately added that in Obsidian they have even cooler ideas for Kickstarter than his, so probably as Obsidian they would go with something different. Not that I would mind if they didn't

I have a mixed feeling about this. On one hand it's great news, because they have a new project that hopefully will let them stay afloat, but on the other hand, getting a project on such a short notice may not bode well for WHAT the project is. If Faergus got this project just now and it's not a result of some long-term talks closed recently, it may be some crappy/uninteresting license or bad terms (like with Bethesda, or even worse). I really hope it's not like that and a new project will be something awesome. If it's kickstarter, then announce it already and take my money

Since we started to compare "who's got bigger one" () I'll say that I've read some people complaining their Witcher saves were around 4 to 5 GB (that's a bit extreme for me, looks like someone was spamming quicksaves like there was no tomorrow). As for DX I can't say much, because I played it a very long time ago and don't remember much of it's save sizes. Maybe I should get back to it and actually finish the game this time.

Yup. And not only quicksaves, autosaves too. Even after the latest patch their size was a bit large, e.g. 15MB per save. I finished up with manually controlling number of saves, deleting the oldest ones from disk, and yet at the end game I had over 200MB save files. Wonder it they changed this behaviour in TW2.

There is manual save. In one of first previews on recent press-build some Polish journalist first claimed that there is only autosave, then he corrected himself that he didn't read thoroughly key bindings he got with preview build (sic!) and with F5 (or F6) you could quicksave anytime you want. Plus, I think devs said there will be normal, manual save through the menu, too.

The Witcher. I lost my old saves and need to prepare new ones for import to TW2

No, they didn't? AFAIK officially TW2 is being released right now only on PC, with strong possibility for appearing on consoles as well (various hints by devs about multiplatform engine they developed and so on). Every showing of the game was made on PCs, but on some occasions they used Xbox 360 controllers (yeah, you can use them with PCs, too). I'm not saying it won't be released on consoles (as it most probably will), but so far the devs haven't stated officialy there will be console versions, so they couldn't be showing game on Xbox