C2B

The big issue with getting more people to crowdfunding is well, it's crowdfunding You'll only ever get a (quite possibly) small fraction of the actual market for the game. The majority won't invest in something that A: Hasn't been made yet B: They don't really get anything back aside from swag. That's also why I believe, successful products will be profitable in most cases.

Did you ever play Suikoden or NWN2? (Just two examples)

The problem with Patrick Stewart in Oblivion was that there were like 5 minutes of Patrick Stewart in Oblivion.

Yup. Hurlshot made the better OP of us two as well. Let's stick to this thread.

I see several questions here - What defines a fanboy - Does a fanboy automatically need to be annoying - Can a fanboy be critical I think I tend to fall into the fanboy group as I'm defending Obsidian's games a lot and love them all to death. (Well my love for (most parts of) NWN2 isn't exactly big) Yet though can critizize them quite heavily if I were to analyze them in a discussion.

Both are important, but I tend to prefer quality over quantity in most cases.

http://www.kickstart...e-to-redemption Lori and Corey Cole Kickstarer (Makers of Quest for Glory)

As I'm working in a swiss based bank i can neither confirm nor deny this statement.

Highliting lootpoints is usually good enough for me.

This is a great and interesting thread to read.

Yeah, I like when these things happen. As with any other form of reactivity. Though, I'm usually disappointed when I find out that this was the only way the story could end. Making it not a consequence of actions, but forced upon by the writer. I don't like fake choices in general though.

No. On that note, what do people here think about quests that have an ending but take a very long time to complete and consist (at least partly) of an repeated action?

Rob seemed to have worked quite exhaustingly during the entire kickstarter. Glad he got to recover.

Yeah, I agree. Autolooting makes the whole process feel *off* sometimes for me.

No, it isn't. Depending on your definition of *triple A* This game won't have a big marketing budget, complete voice overs, cinematic cutscenes or state-of-the-art graphics. I will however have lots of quality content.

Agree with that part at least. How conversations have been presented in many recent titles has been terrible to say the least.

Yes, and that's good design, IMO. Both of these are something you should absolutly be able to do before doing the action. (Which wasn't the case in AP) Anyway, I'm glad the misunderstanding was cleared up, and I think I stated my opinion (Which you may disagree with)(The only reason I posted in here, was because of the black and white tone of the OP post/title.). Now, to work.

Though, I have actually taken the article as an indication that he might do a plane-jumping universe that exists beside the world of P:E.

Yup, my bad. Though, I was more refering to DE:HR where it has both when utilized. (And a lot more that I want in similiar games) DE:HR is pretty great in regards to a dialog system. I still think it could be improved, but it's awesome for its type of game. I loved the DE:HR system, it fit the game and the franchise well, it doesn't have a time limit and the responses are in full if you want them to be. Another thing, you might have misunderstood what I was saying (And looking back that was probably my fault). I don't want timed in all conversations either, especially casual ones. Timed is good when it fits, like in HR when you're dealing with someone on the edge. That's also why I'm so disappointed in the boss battles of the main game. Edit: (If the question comes up: AP was only sparsely casual and most of that weren't really conversations. Though there are 2-3 instances where it REALLY didn't fit.) Edit2: Also I'm using casual here wrong, as I encompass some other conversation types into that as well.

Yup, my bad. Though, I was more refering to DE:HR where it has both when utilized. (And a lot more that I want in similiar games) DE:HR is pretty great in regards to a dialog system. I still think it could be improved, but it's awesome for its type of game.

Now that actually makes sense for some games like The Witcher 2, action RPGs and FPS with RPG elements like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, interrupts over NPC spoken dialogue make a lot of sense. Wait what? That's exactly what I'm arguing for. AP was a (bad) FPS with RPG elements too. And AP's conversational system wasn't without flaws as I mentioned in a previous post. Edit: Overall I actually prefer the way DE:HR did it.

Yeah, I liked how W2 did it too.

That's a question of design though. You shouldn't be able to converse (at least not in a casual manner) while things are trying to kill you.

One reason, the other was spy rpg and there was a third one I don't remember. (Mitsoda designed it. Did he ever answer why exactly?) Though, the simple paraphrases were completly console style (and my greatest critisism about the system. They're hideous and you can't read the answer out of them. Come to think of it, I may have given the impression I liked them. I do not. I like the timed factor, *stance system* (though it could be immesly improved) and conversation paths. I think Avellone said somewhere they would have liked to present the options differently. Them being so short was probably also responsible for the short answer time.

From what I heard it's similiar. Though, they try to remove the *follow these options to win* mentality. As I understand it by using different conversation paths in certain conversations.