FlintlockJazz

Since you can't fathom, read the interviews and posts in my sig. No. I'm just saying it would add a lot to the game, I know at least two people who are going to get it off pirate bay rather than buy it because of the lack of multiplayer.Then they are pathetic. There is no reason to cater to people who will look for any excuse to pirate a game, especially a kickstarter game. Just because a game does not have a specific feature does not mean they get to pirate it nor use the threat of piracy to get what they want over others. Tell them that I think they are dickless liars please. Wait a sec, I get told to play nice in the sandbox and this so and so comes back with this vitriol and mods dont bat an eyelid? Well Sir you are entitled to your opinion, I don't see why you call them liars, it's out of context, but thats just me. In reply to your other point, it's not a threat, if a game doesnt have the features you want then you dont have to buy it. If you download it and delete it rather than purchasing it you've created interest where there was none before but not enough for someone to part with their dollars/euro/yen/rupees. If a game is worth playing then it has the features you want. The lack of multiplayer is just an excuse, a lie used to try to justify their actions, hence they are liars. You don't get to choose whether you pay for a game dependent on the features it has... Osvir and others have explained better I'm on a phone so awkward to write more indepth.

Since you can't fathom, read the interviews and posts in my sig. No. I'm just saying it would add a lot to the game, I know at least two people who are going to get it off pirate bay rather than buy it because of the lack of multiplayer. Then they are pathetic. There is no reason to cater to people who will look for any excuse to pirate a game, especially a kickstarter game. Just because a game does not have a specific feature does not mean they get to pirate it nor use the threat of piracy to get what they want over others. Tell them that I think they are dickless liars please.

Bull****. The poll has been rigged by having both 'yes' and 'possibly' lumped together into one. How many of those 'yes' votes were actually 'I don't care for multiplayer but not against it'? 40% do not want multiplayer, they just don't give a toss, and yet even with the blatant rigging of the polls the 'yes' campain is still losing...

Thank you, I couldn't think of the best way to describe it but caricature is basically what I was thinking off. I'd say BG1 is better because the proportions are not out of whack like they are in BG2, and it doesn't look deliberate but rather like they were just drawn badly. Style is subjective, but if you paid me to draw a portrait of yourself and I gave you a badly drawn stick man picture you wouldn't accept that it's badness is subjective you'd ask for your money back. Anyway, we all know my opinion is the important one here, because I'm right and everything should be done according to my whims!

As others have said, Project Eternity is just the project title, we actually don't know what the game will be called. It could be anything, like Master Spaffington's Spaffingly Spiffy Advetnures into Spaffing on People's Faces with Spaff. Which would be awesome.

Really? That's kinda depressing. I wonder if the original 'pre-scarred' versions can still be found on the interwebz, be interesting to see if some of the facial deformation was a result of these changes. It's a matter of preference and chosen style and atmosphere. Also BG2 Imone >>> BG1 Imoen. BG2 Jaheria does look distorted, I'll give you that. Okay, there is this saying that there's no accounting for taste. For me BG1 Imoen will always be a redneck and BG2 Imoen will be an adventurer. And yes, BG2 Jaheira probably was to be drawn more bad-ass, yet someone went over the top and overdid it. But, as many people, so as many different opinions. No accounting for taste indeed, for instance I really can't see where people get the redneck thing from, she looks like a cheeky but confident bar maid (which she is, she worked for Winthrop after all) and BG2 looks like an adventurer? Nah, ignoring the fact that her head doesn't seem to go with the rest of her neck and body she looks like a gaunt 14 year old with a bland expressionless face who doesn't look like she could handle adventuring. But regardless, whether they are a 'best fit' or not for a specific character is not the point, the point was that the portraits for BG1 were just done better quality, whereas BG2 looked like they were done by an amateur. I know someone will try and claim it was the 'style' or somesuch, that it's an artistic thing, well I'm sorry but the 'style' looks ****. Sure, subjective opinion and all with art, but would you consider any subjective opinion that my drawing of a stick figure is better than the Mona Lisa? And I can tell you, my drawing sucks so bad that my stick figures are bad.

Let's compare: Baldur's Gate 1 Portraits Baldur's Gate 2 Portraits I'm sorry, but no offense to the artist who did them but the second lot just do not match up with the first lot. First off, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO JAHEIRA'S FACE???!!! It's not that she looks different from the first game, it's that she looks like she had her face driven into by a truck and then had her facial reconstruction seriously messed up by a stoned back street surgeon. I played BG2 first by the way, and even without knowing what her first incarnation was like, I felt that there was something really wrong with her face, her eyes don't line up for a start. In fact, all the facial expressions seem off on them all, the eyes misplaced, necks extremely wrong etc. They also all look like they are having mug shots taken of themselves, whereas the first ones seem more natural, the first ones seem more interesting whereas the latter are just staring lifelessly at you, zombies have more character. And as Mr. Magniloquent said, what's with the dreadlocks dude? The first ones have a greater degree of detail I find, and they just seem better quality, like they were done by a more skilled artist, more professional. The world they paint also seems better and more cohesive. So, in short, what we've learnt here today folks is that I think the BG2 portraits suck compared to BG1 portraits. Does this help the thread? Probably not, but it's been a while since I could get on these forums on an actual computer instead of my phone and stick pics up.

I have to say, I prefered the Baldur's Gate 1 portraits over BG2 portraits, the latter actually seemed really bad and horrible to me with their faces actually looking disfigured due to the proportions used, while the former seemed more colourful and detailed, conveying the characters more.

Seconded. I mean, Gandalf pulls it off pretty well, but that's kind of his splendor over-powering the crappiness of the hat design. I also hate Wizard bath robes. I don't care how many arcane symbols are on them if it looks like I just got out of the shower to answer a knock at the door, or escaped from a hospital bed. "I just draped something upon myself! Because I'm MAGIC!" I like more practical/utilitarian Wizard attire. I will say I'm a fan of the like... fingerless cloth (or even leather/other materials) gauntlet things. I don't know what they're officially called. They protect palms/forearms (even if just from the elements), yet leave fingers free for touch spells, and effects like from the Cloak of Arachnia (wall climbing a la Spiderman). In that respect, I think Aloth's attire's pretty good : This design (which I posted some pages back) would also work nicely for wizards, I reckon : I have to say, Aloth's appearance really does NOT do it for me, its bland and nondescript at best. Hell, he looks more like a rogue than a wizard.

Seconded. I mean, Gandalf pulls it off pretty well, but that's kind of his splendor over-powering the crappiness of the hat design. I also hate Wizard bath robes. I don't care how many arcane symbols are on them if it looks like I just got out of the shower to answer a knock at the door, or escaped from a hospital bed. "I just draped something upon myself! Because I'm MAGIC!" I like more practical/utilitarian Wizard attire. I will say I'm a fan of the like... fingerless cloth (or even leather/other materials) gauntlet things. I don't know what they're officially called. They protect palms/forearms (even if just from the elements), yet leave fingers free for touch spells, and effects like from the Cloak of Arachnia (wall climbing a la Spiderman). Nothing wrong with pointy hats, they are no silly at all especially if done right. They are iconic, can give an air of mystery and just look badass. They are better than most of the alternatives games have tried over the years and in fact their lack of appearance in recent serious games means they are due for a comeback!

I'm with alanschu on this one, beta access is just early access to most people and a waste of resources for the devs. Keep beta for actual beta testers, better for everyone in the long run.

Pointy wizard hats needed too.

Pointy gandalf style hats had better be in!

I just don't believe romances are the key to this. I would seriously doubt you would see a massive sales drop off in a bioware game where romance wasn't included. All your are doing is trying to connect sales to romance based on your desire to see romance in the game. I believe that most people would prefer Romance over MP, but I wouldn't mind someone creating a Poll to get a sense of what people want. As I mentioned numerous times Romance is not the only thing that defines an RPG, but it is something that is very popular and will increase the fan base. So I'm not trying to connect anything. I am merely stating the facts which are you will increase the interest in the game if you have Romance as we know Romance is popular. By increasing interest in the game the corollary of this should be people actually buying the game, that is how Romance is linked to sales The only logical counter argument to my point is if you don't believe that the majority of people like Romance or rather that including Romance wouldn't draw new people. But based on the success of BSN I would find this rebuttal hard to believe as the facts speak for themselves? Romance drew in a lot of fans on BSN but how many fans did it drive away? It's easy to know how many you got, almost impossible to know how many you lost since genuine losses don't bother posting on the forums they just go elsewhere.

It did, many Bothans died to bring you that post. Brilliant post, I don't agree with everything but it was a brilliant post - and now I'm determined to have your hat Did I mention there's a thermal detonator in there? Halbech betrayal ending! It's a very popular feature with many people that are fans of RPGs, particularly ones like Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate 2. The reaction to romances was probably the biggest surprise of BG2. They were ridiculously well received. Despite not being a fan of them personally, I disagree with the implication that their popularity is constrained to something like the BioWare Social Network (hence why the topic continually gets brought up in pretty much every RPG developer's forum). They were well-received, but I wonder how much of that reception was due to them being romances and how much was simply having the interaction increase those romances provided. If you didn't romance someone you didn't get anywhere near as much dialog with them as you did if you did romance them, and I wonder if it would have been as well received if not possibly even better received if instead of romance tracks they had done friendship tracks. Cause and correlation, if you get me. Romance gave the illusion of interaction in a game that lacked other options. People (myself at one point) think that the BG2 romances brought something to the game when really it was the lack of interaction from the non-romanceable characters that made it look like that. I used to get pissed off when you had to choose between them not because I wanted to bone them but because it would mean the other character would them pretty much never talk again and any character development would stop. Plus, the romances were actually pretty dire when you looked at them: you had Jaheira who was telling you about the 'dreams' she was having to justify jumping you before her husband was even cold in the ground (partly because she didn't even bother burying the poor bastard), which were pretty creepy if you actually think about it, Aerie the baby-inventory-item spawner that seemed like a 12 year old and gave off pedophillic vibes, and Viconia, who I now realise was Morrigan version 0.1. So why were they so well-received? Because of character interaction, which can be achieved with other forms of interaction nowadays, ones that don't cut off all other forms of interaction with other characters. Oh, I finally remembered the extra stuff I wanted to mention. If they really must have bisexual romance options to appeal to all, then lets cut down on the work even more and make a romance option a bisexual hermaphrodite! Armed with both boobs and balls he/she can satisfy both genders as well as both orientations by themself! That's right ladies and gentlemen, you get two for one!

Oh my, this is still going is it? Well, let this one fan the flames and throw his hat into the ring (and then grab it right back, you bastards ain't having my hat, it's too good for ya!). I'm one of the people who is not a big fan of romance, and don't believe it is necessary for the game to be good, and often believe they detract from the game as quite often if you want any interaction out of the character you have to bone them, and I'd like to be nice to people and hear their stories without having to shove my **** in them. I would consider myself an antiromancer I guess if you want labels, but I won't decry it like the anti-durability brigade did without giving it a chance. I won't get upset if they are in the game, I might even enjoy them, but only if they are done right, which means not teen fan fic that seeks only to indulge the player's fantasies, and not at the expense of other kinds of relationships and interaction. I am now going to go through the requirements the inclusion of romances would need to have before being condoned by yours truly: First off, the inclusion of romances would only be allowed by myself if all other forms of possible relationship the writers wanted to include are in there and fully fleshed out. I would actually like to experience some other kinds of interaction, comraderie and siblingdom for instance. No calibrations please. Second, the romance should not compromise the character in any way. I remember having a 'discussion' with someone on the Bioware forums (yes I used to frequent them many years ago, I was younger and stupider and did not know better), I told them that I want romances to actually take note of the character and only have them come onto you if you actually acted and had the characteristics that they would be attracted to. If Miss Buxom would never go out with a weedy mage type because she only likes muscle-bound thickos you should not be able to bed her. Their response was that they already had to deal with that stuff in real life and didn't want to have to deal with it in a game, that they should get the girl/guy regardless so that they can enjoy it, I'm sorry but if you want that then you are indeed after wish fulfillment indulgence and not after 'depth' of character if you are willing to compromise the character like that. Third, I should not feel like every man, woman and child is trying to get into my pants. You just chat with people in DAO or ME2 and people are clambering to get into your pants! I gave my character a charisma of 3, why is the elf princess trying to rape me??! This ties into my frustration with many games these days that constantly ego-stroke you. Seriously, games these days feel like the power fantasy of 12 year olds, wherein you are not only the chosen one but the chosen one who everyone talks about how awesome you are all the time, the best at what you do and are always 'speshul', the one chosen to stab everyone either with your metal sword or with your flesh sword. I'm not twelve, the average age of gamers is actually quite high now, lets get some decent high quality **** in the stories now. There was more, but I can't remember now. Basically, I'm one who, despite certain comments in this thread that claims all antimancers are not interested in character interaction, actually finds romance in games often removes interaction and investigation of other kinds of relationship. Also note folks that while polls may show that more people voted in favor of romance that more people also voted saying that they did want some form of durability in the game too and that didn't seem to impact Obsidian any. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64050-item-durability/page-9

My official response to the issue of attributes is that currently we do not know enough yet to make a decision, and I refuse to immediately decry something without giving it a chance (unlike those who decried the item durability system). Now, I like that he's striving for a system whereby you don't have dump stats and can build your character in different ways, for instance an intelligent fighter or strongman mage (anyone else get an Alex Strongarm image in their heads at that?) wherein the unconventional stat gives the class a bonus still. What I fear is a Diablo or Torchlight 2 style system or one where you have attributes called 'Damage' and 'Accuracy'. One of the main purposes of attributes for me is that they help define what kind of person your character is, for instance you can look at Minsc's stat line and immediately see that he's someone strong and tough but mentally deficient, whereas a character from DA:O I had no idea about since the stat lines would shoot up stupidly high from leveling. I mean if a character ended up with strength 80 does that mean they were a weakling at level 1 when their strength was 20 and what's average? I'm not a fan of increasing attributes to be honest since they usually lead to obscene min-maxing and confusing concepts of just what is average. Doing the attributes right is hard, which is why I really want to see what it is they are intending before commenting further, but I do recall that your attributes were mentioned as being the stats used to define your options in dialog, and that a low intelligence would give you 'dumb man' options instead, so I'm wondering how attributes like 'Damage' would accomplish this. Maybe the 'attributes' Mr Sawyer was mentioning was actually 'secondary attributes' derived from the primary attributes maybe? Maybe damage stat is derived from both the strength and the intelligence stat for instance, strength because it determines the strength of the blows naturally and intelligence to simulate the character working out the best place to target their blows for best effect? Dexterity and Wits to determine accuracy? Dunno, it's all theorycraft, will have to wait until they explain it better.

Does Stephen "Don't call me Steve" Heck count as a minor NPC? Because he does need mentioning...

Does she do anything later? As far as I remember she doesn't have any further relevance after that meeting with albatross. I guess that thing you can have Mike say about St. George and the Dragon was pretty cool, but the only thing notable about Sis herself is just how out of place she is in the world being constructed in that game. She can appear to rescue Mike if you choose Albatross as your handler for the last mission, but its still pretty minor. She appears to have been the victim of cut content making her a minor character but for the bits she's in she is excellent making her an excellent minor NPC as per the thread title.

Sis from Alpha Protocol? Dunno why you would get hate for her, she was an awesome character. Should have mentioned her myself.

Wirt the pegleg boy, Ogden, Farnham, Griswold, Gillian, Pepin. Always thought the destruction of Tristram was a waste of potential.

Yes, as far as the abstraction of the game mechanics is concerned. Your character doesn't start as a fetus. He/she starts as an adult person. Obviously he hasn't been "adventuring" since the fetal stage, but he/she's been doing SOMEthing up until the present. That's a lot of time to learn things. A year-or-two of blacksmith apprenticeship will have you able to produce weapons and armor. Also, who says the game is obviously going to allow your character to become a master smith? I haven't even studied engineering intensely, but I bet I can build a shed out of wood that won't fall over. Does that mean a professional carpenter/builder can't make something 17 times better/sturdier/more efficient than I can? No. Does his ability to make such a thing mean that someone else can't even assemble pieces of wood together into some sort of free-standing construct that functions on some basic level? Nope. Oh, wait, I forgot. If we put something in P:E, it's GOT to directly model an existing implementation from another game. Drat... Darn that unwritten rule!!! *fist shake* And, as Micamo said, the whole time thing is already abstracted. Why doesn't healing take you 3 weeks of sleeping, in-game? Abstraction. So, yes, you could improve your smithing skill at an abstractly faster-than-real-life rate, and STILL be a novice/amateur relative to master smiths. to put it simply, real life smithing is like this i know how to bang the metal and shape it into a sword i know how to handle iron, steel, titanium, mithril, adamantite and alchemical silver i can turn any of the above metals into a sword. EEEEEEE! No, I have to say it's not as simple as that. Hell, they couldn't make plate or the largest swords until blast furnaces came along, and bronze requires combining tin and copper (and was actually better than iron until new methods were developed including the aforementioned blast furnaces, people moved onto iron because it was cheap, not because it was better, and could be mass produced more easily). Do you know how hard it is to handle titanium? You'd probably need magic to be able to do anything with it in the middle ages. As to 'just banging the metal into the shape of a sword', no it doesn't work that way. Do you know why most single-edged swords are curved and most double-edged swords bulged along their length? That's because in order to give a piece of metal a sharp edge you need to make it brittle, the sharper it is the more brittle it becomes. The sharp parts of the sword were heated to different temperatures than the parts that were not, hence causing them to bend and curve, single-edged swords like katanas bending back along the blunt, more flexible side of the blade. There was a reason why many armoursmiths and weaponsmiths were renowned for their skill and sought after, the Italian and German armoursmiths especially.

Not everyone. Frrankly I think CRPG's are getting TOO loot-centric as of late and it leads to the entire experience getting watered down. Agree with this, the IE games had weapons you kept and used throughout the game, were named and had history and made you want to keep them. Diablo style looting just leads to ever escalating weapons that are generic and are meaningless, playing on the "ooh shiny" player while removing the opportunity for the aforementioned named weapons to become signature weapons. Even DAO did this, having the weapons you pick up later being leveled up and forcing you to ditch the weapons you picked up earlier in order to stay competitive. In a party based game you are always going to have one party member you still need to find the perfect weapon for so Diablo style looting isn't needed.

Like everything, it depends on which side of the fence you stand. Some of the same people that were high-fiving the removal of boobplate are now rending their clothes and gnashing their teeth while Western civilization crumbles over durability. In this day and age releasing a game without boobplate is more risky than piling the boobs on the plate and rubbing the player's face in it.

First of all, ask yourself this: do I trust the Obsidian development team? If the answer to this is no, then the issue is larger than the mere removal of durability, and if you can build a compelling argument around it, that might make for a very interesting discussion. If the answer is yes, then please consider that the team read both the for and against arguments provided in many locations on the forum. They, likely intentionally, stayed quiet for a few days, reading replies, discussed internally, and after evaluating with the team came to the conclusion that there might be even better ways to handle game economy than durability. We don't know the reasons for why they came to this conclusion, I would say it's probably because in order to implement durability well, as many pointed out, it needs to have a major gameplay impact, and that might be too time consuming design-wise. In the end, that time could be spent designing something more enjoyable for us players. But who am I to say. This isn't about the decision that Obsidian made, though the kneejerk reactions of some people probably didn't help and there are some cawing that they influenced the decision, but the kneejerk reaction itself and how the community is so averse to risk as to make the publishers right in their decisions. People putting forward criticisms and pointing out where it could go wrong is great, I'm not normally a fan of durability myself, but the outright rejection and claims they would never play the game with it was depressing.