Monte Carlo

As of now that's only 220 backers to go.

Hmmm. I don't like the party camp system but I don't hate it either. What was the problem with the BG2 system? Drop off your NPCs at a tavern. Want to swap them out? Go and pick them up. It would be cool if some NPCs wandered off and left you a message (Oh, you're looking for Bob the Wizard? He said he was looking for spell components at the Tower of Mystery, he'll meet you there if you swing by"). Others might just be where you left them. The idea that the party follows you around waiting for a slot on the team is just more Bio ego-massage of the PC.

Do they need to do more to target the European audience?

This is my first experience of Kickstarter. It must be quite tough for Obsidian to keep up interest *and* develop a game in tandem, as if development is being driven by the 'shiny baubles' dynamic of stretch goals. Plus, we are all expecting something awesome for the end of the project to bump up last minute pledges. I'm one of those people who has pledged $100+ and would potentially pledge a little more (although the next tier, for me, isn't different enough for me to pledge right now, it would be prompted by a stretch goal). Plus there must be lots of people waiting to pledge. Personally, I'm just happy that this game is being made at all. I will support the game by buying any more content released for it and spreading the word online... and yes giving more money as and when I get the right trigger from Obz.

Bikini armour might be ceremonial. Any excuse to get a suit of it in somewhere. What about 'glamered' armour, i.e. armour enchanted to look like something else. Hell, a head-to-foot suit of plate might be enchanted to look like a chainmail bikini to distract male opponents. Old-skool chauvinism --- using magic to justify chainmail bikinis since 1979!

(a) it would require work (b) Turn-Based is as dead as disco (it really is) and (c ) they said they wanted to recapture the spirit of the IE games which were RTwP. I hope to partially accomodate TB fans they can put in enough autopause options as possible, but creating two parallel systems doesn't make much sense to me.

Do you think that Souls should be a game mechanic or a more prosaic / story-driven part of your character. I loved MotB but found the soul-eating mechanic, if I'm honest, a bit of a bind. But I'm not opposed to the idea of a hard metric involving your soul. For example, I think Soul as a characteristic like Strength or Dexterity actually quite appealing. Soul could be a combination of wisdom, power, presence, mana, luck and spiritual 'charisma' for a character. In RuneQuest this stat was called Power and meant you had a certain level of spiritual presence... to the extent that very high Power characters suffered a penalty to stealth! In many games the 'soft skills' stats get min-maxed. Having Soul as a stat that helps every character irrelevant of class would make for interesting character building and hard choices --- would a medium strength but high power fighter enjoy certain benefits that impacted on fighting style, for example? OTOH it might be that your soul is an externally tracked mechanic, like the MotB version. Or indeed a totally abstract under-the-hood thing. I know we are speculating, but what do you think?

I voted no. Mainly because (a) the engine is determined, (b) I want the game to look great and (c ) it is a cold light-of-day fact that a better-looking game will increase sales. I am also totally confident that the developers will squeeze every last drop of potential from Unity to make a cool-looking game, something that references the past but still looks fit for purpose in the present.

I don't mind straightforward encumbrance rules, i.e. weight versus strength, but this is too complex for me. As long as small items stack (i.e. I should easily be allowed to get 100 small gemstones in a single inventory slot) then I'm happy. BG2's scroll cases, quivers, gem bags and potion satchels were a simple solution to a simple problem.

Sadly, the poll questions were poorly phrased. The OP is hardly alone in this. I like powaz, and unique ones are good, but they should be modest and all NPCs should have them too (BG1 & 2 is littered with small rules infringements that make the NPCs more interesting). So a unique powa that is part of the character generation process: a quirk or trait. That would be great.

BG1: Being a Munchkin, I'd always head for the tiny hole under a tree outside of the Friendly Arm Inn and get the free Ring of Wizardry.

Monday Morning Quarter-Backing. Please lock.

OK, so you are most familiar with Arcanum. I'm not, really. In many of the IE games there were iconic items that harked back to the games that inspired them. To win them, you (usually) had to beat an equally iconic and devilishly tough opponent. The reward / risk ratio was fair. The item was not game breaking (ironically, the most game-breaking item in BG2, the shield of balduran, you could buy) but powerful. Such items are very important to those of us who appreciate what went before. Others want to play some sort of worthy text adventure that satisfies their faux-hipster gaming credentials, based on games that don't actually represent what this project is advertised to be about. I am not saying you are one of them, and acknowledge that Obz are trying to satisfy a diverse bunch of gamers. But people who continually post "No uber items" and "less fighting please" strike me as harking back to a very recent past, and don't seem to dig where this project appears to be coming from.

And herein lies the rub... Because for me, and many, many others the opposite is true.

I want lots of quests. Side-quests, NPC quests, faction quests, critical-path quests, for-the-sake-of-it-quests. As long as each one has something going on (a cool battle, funny / meaningful dialogue, some treasure, reveals lore or new areas, introduces a new NPC the list goes on). Not having them leads to dull rail-roading.

So, really, you don't want items consistent with the precursor games that allegedly inspire P:E?

Although I am personally untroubled by co-op and mounts I agree that they are very good stretch goals. What was the old-skool isometric game that had mounts? They looked great. I have articulated my favourites, i.e. a megadungeon, but I am also wondering if a really cool mega-enemy, an iconic villain and associated lair, might be a good stretch goal. Like at XXXXXX pledge point we will introduce an epic quest to assault an ancient dragon lair: defeat it's cohorts, win it's hoard! (etc)

Hello to the OP and firstly can I say how brilliant it is that you pledged so much. your generosity is inspirational. Kudos to you, sir (or madam). Magic items... Hmmm. I am a twinkie magic items whore. My favourites have a balance between bad-assery / restrictions and modest cross-class versatility. What do I mean by that? Bad-Assery: Well, obviously, I want the item to make a tangible, visceral difference when I use it. Weapons are the obvious example. I don't mind if the powa is modal or not, just that when I want the item to shine, it does. It also needs to (a) look cool and (b) have a decent name. Blackrazor is a cool name. The Hand of Vecna is a cool name. Restrictions: With licence, comes restraint. Powaz should be tempered by restrictions. Maybe stats or class. Maybe enemy types. Maybe it has an unpredictable but unwelcome effect on the person using it. Maybe the item is sentient and with it's own agenda. Maybe it is addictive and won't let you unequip it (my preciousssssss). Cross-Class Versatility: In the BG games I loved items that gave me a powa that usually only other classes enjoyed. A truly epic item might let my fighter pick pockets, or my mage occasionally be badass at melee. Maybe my rogue can heal. You know, give a useful power that allows me to re-think my core NPC strategy perhaps. Anyhow, hope these are food for thought. Cheers MC

The most terrible thing about your post is, that this statement makes you the most romantic person on the Obsidian Boards Yes I must finally admit to being a closet Romantic. Violently opposing Romances in this project is just a tragic symptom of denial and a turbulent inner conflict of metaphysical proportions.Please forgive me *sobs*

I like the idea of 'science fantasy' a la Moorc0ck etc (hawkwind for example; it had mechanical flying machines in the shape of beasts and 'flamelances' but also swords, axes and armour). Howabout some races having a different relationship with their souls than others? Make the high medieval renaissance setting fuelled by magic, make the reformation of the world linked to the perception of souls and their worth. Make magical science distinct and unusual.there is nothing wrong with high fantasy settings, but some of us like a burst of chilli with our vanilla if you get my drift.

Hi Chris welcome to your 40's. Beaker would make an epic JNPC. Really, he would.

I once worked in a job where body armour was necessary. Level II-IIIa , composite Kevlar / fabric-style armour which is obviously more flexible than steel. As Sawyer said, the female version (we had several women on our team) was virtually identical to ours. Bear in mind some of the enhanced armour had ceramic plates for high-velocity --- still no concessions for the females. They told me it wasn't that uncomfortable, as the kit was fitted properly. The girls with bigger busts ended up being a bit 'strapped down' but it was no real drama. Personally, I'm a fan of chainmail bikinis because I'm old-fashioned like that. It's fantasy. But if you want to go the realistic route (which I'm chilled about) then the female armour will look the same as the men's.

Modern gaming discourse: where you actually find yourself debating with people on a forum for a classic IE-style isometric CRPG who don't want combat.

I am expecting a small, well-polished gem upon which to build more awesomeness in the future. I do not think that I am being over-optimistic as I know Obsidian can do it, with aplomb.

I too find the concept art average compared to the ranger pic. But I am patient. Why hasn't the female musketeer got a melee weapon?