Undecaf

nvm

Separate optional tutorial from the startup menu gets my vote. In-game tutorials tend to just get in the way after the first time.

No skillrelated minigames please. "One click actions" do just fine if the results - failure or succes - are of the characters current level of competence. I also don't see why there would need to be a specific *extra* challenge other than getting high enough skill in non-combat activities. But if there would need to be such, I would go for limited attempts ("Your lack of skill has jammed the lock") and/or "tool" - i.e. lockpick - deterioration. It's not much a challenge in other way than making the player consider their chances and resources more, but I don't feel there needs to be a specific additional "player challenge". Your character is just as challenged or competent as you've made him/her to be. If it then comes down to "But people will just reload and retry ad infinitum", I think that can be effectively discouraged by making the attempt take a bit of time where that's appropriate (the time being determined by skill vs task difficulty). If people would still want to go through the bore of spamming save/reload/retry, I'd say let them, if they eventually succeed, they've earned their reward (and that's something I'm not patient enough to do). /2 cents

That sounds a bit like a "learn by doing" system. Only that you learn potency in a whole given category of abilities where you then assign points freely (somewhat like in the first Fable game). I'm not sure if I like the premise if it goes like how I understood it in the update. I sure appreciate and applaud the making of noncombat abilities as useful as combat abilities, no two words about it, but I also a concern that the system might end up being a bit wobbly (for my tastes) if my first impression on the info is a correct one. Nonetheless, a good informative update that gave some food for thought.

No for multiplayer. Don't care for the rest.

Heh, somebody was quick - few minutes and one new 5000 pledge taken already.

That was intriguing. I'd be interested in hearing about how these souls work (or are planned to work) gameplay mechanically and in practice (just bare basics). The state of the world sounds good too.

I wouldn't say they necessarily "should exist" (could would be the word I'd use) as that sounds - to me at least - too much like they are specifically required, but I do agree with the rest of the post.

Oh dear...

I had to google that because I have no recollection of these bioware races -- the pictures I got look like blue women with tentacles on their heads. Imagine looking at that from high above, from the isometric perspective. Would it look like a blue woman with tentacles on her head or a non-gender being? What does a non-gender being look like anyway? That's not what I was talking about, though. I answered to a specific post. I did not comment on the op.

If the game does not respond or react to these options in any particular way and thus enhance the gameplay, their inclusion is redundant and you might aswell just imagine these things. And I am quite sure this game will not be able to respond to every whim the players might have (nor should it). In most CRPGs i've played ethnicity/skin colour/national identity has never been acknowledged, only the fantasy race (i.e. elf, dwarf etc). Could you imagine a game not including different skin colour options for a character, and the developers saying "sorry we didn't have time to cater to EVERY possible character option...just imagine you're black." Of course not. Gender identity and sexual preference shouldn't be excluded from a game just because they're not yours, or part of your understanding of the world. Gender, race and skincolor are visual traits, though. By that, they already project a consequence for choosing them. You can't witness a sexual orientation without having it visualized in some way. And whose sexual orientations should be visualized and in what way/magnitude? Or should they all be? Mix and match? I think not.

Sure, nobody wants to have everything, yet everybody wants to have at least their own way. Catch 22. Just leave it out and everyone concerned about this will be equally disappointed. Fair play.

If the game does not respond or react to these options in any particular way and thus enhance the gameplay, their inclusion is redundant and you might aswell just imagine these things. And I am quite sure this game will not be able to respond to every whim the players might have (nor should it).

I don't think that "because something can't please everyone you shouldn't include it at all" is any more logical than trying to please absolutely everyone, and could lead to a product just as bad. Consider the context of this feature (small time, not very prone for actual gameplay impact), though, and look at all the raging about it in the forums. If it was considered a bigtime feature; like combat, or branching characterdriven storyline -- it would make sense to consider the options. But this is a pure flavor feature and people are clearly divided about it in all possible directions; and with passion. It's not worth the trouble.

I say no for post ending gameplay. Games should end while you're still having fun (if you are, that is), not when you get tired of it and quit out of boredom.

I'm willing to sacrifice romances in every condition there is. This is a slippery slope anyway. What happens when romncenites get their one romance with few lines of dialog? They will be dissatisfied because the few lines they wanted ends up not being enough. Further more, the LGBT people will rage over not being presented; if the one romance is for male PC's only, female players who care about this will rage (and vice versa if the romance is for female PC's only); and the no romances people will shake their head "Why the hell was this inane bs forced in the game". It all ends a massive cluster**** of disappointed people. And for what? Nothing worthwhile. Or, alternatively, there ends up being sloppy and underdeveloped **** "for everyone" just for everyone to get included (except for the no people), and which only a few end up liking anyway. It really is better for everyone to not have stuff like this at all in this game, with budget and scope this small, and focus something completely different.

Use your imagination. I'm fairly certain there won't be hard statements in the game that you are or are not what you think you are regarding this.

It's Jim Sterling. What'd you expect?

Someone message them asap, good advertising for both GOG and PE.

Who ever the composer, though, I wouldn't want the music to be like in the pitch video where it souded good (to me) but kinda generic. I'd want the score to have some experimental bite to it; something nonconventional. Arcanun did great (imo) with the minimalistic approach, and PS:T did likewise great with the Mark Morgan ambient touch, for a couple of examples -- and that's the sort of thing I'd like to hear in PE too, something that strays at least a bit from the basic fantasy orchestrals.

My vote.

Maybe it was an insidious marketing scheme. Good news make people happy, happy people pay more.

This and the Beta access just made me up my pledge. Very good news indeed.

Update 4 is up in the KS page, no doubt soon here too. Beta access to $140 tier and GOG.com release of the game for a couple of snippets.

I wouldn't call this successful, nor a conversation...