FlintlockJazz

Well you see wrong then. First off people did defend the system before it was removed. Second, the problem isn't that people pointed out what was wrong with but that some people attacked the very idea of a durability system at all, demanding its removal without ever considering that it might work and making presumptions about it that had no basis in reality. The rest of your post consists of strawman and bull**** so isn't worth responding to. Oh and most of the criticism is being leveled at the posters who attacked durability without giving it any thought or chance, not at Obsidian. Get your facts straight please.

And you believe it has potential to be great based on... what, exactly? I've seen lots and lots of examples and explanations of how the system could go horribly wrong, but no examples or explanations of what the system could add to the game: All that the defenders seem to have to say is "You just hate innovation." Actually no we have mentioned what it brings so don't bull****. I myself have mentioned how it brings in a resource that needs to be managed and how it helps to simulate the party getting worn down, hell you even responded to it but I guess you're choosing to ignore it now in an attempt to deny that we have actually put reasons forward.

I have a bit of a problem with this. Having my items break and my stats take a hit doesn't make me feel worn down and desperate, it's just the DM telling me "You are very tired right now." Again, they never said that the items broke, on the contrary they said that they became damaged, that was all. As for railroading as mentioned in your link, it's no more railroading than your DM saying "You feel dead," when your hit points run out.

Comically missing the point, much? Early firearms and item degrading are probably the least risky modifications to the Standard Average Fantasy RPG I cam think of. No I got your point, it wasn't a good point and your post actually backed my point up, hence my response.

Well, durability is out it seems. Shame, while others seemed to have conjured up the presumption that when your weapon ran out of durability you'd need to immediately return to town (the penalty seemed rather small, we won't know until we see the game but for all we knew the penalty would not have warranted immediate evac from dungeon, just a sign that your character was getting tired so to speak, and only when penalties from other sources that added altogether would you consider time to leave), to me it conjured up images of adventurers getting slowly worn down, epically struggling on as their equipment no longer gleamed shiny clean. People assumed that crafting would add a big enough bonus to 'require' all fighters to take it, but again we didn't know this, the bonus may have been great enough that it was nice to have if you had crafting anyway but not big enough to warrant taking it over another skill, but I guess we'll never know now...

It's a testament to just how much of a rut the fantasy genre is in that early firearms and weapon/armor durability is what counts for "taking risks." Yep, and the backlash against even that probably means that most developers are too scared to try anything more extreme.

This wasn't something new or innovative. It wasn't some "risky" stroke of maverick genius, just a choice of whether to include a common (also to publisher-funded games) mechanic to deal with the problem of late-game economy. Nor does it, for whatever that would signify, have anything to do with publishers being right (?!). Good riddance; the game would obviously have been better off with a different mechanic, or a different implementation of the original (and not planet scanning either...). You're seriously using Mako exploration as an example of how the designers should stick to any idea that comes up? Sure, but guns are part of the setting and the vision of the game, and Obsidian wouldn't -didn't!- get rid of them merely due to some shrill voices on the forums, whereas there were good reasons for doing away with durability (which wasn't even a central mechanic to the game, just a device to fix a minor problem of ecomony). First off, yes it was risky since it was clear including durability would cause a strong reaction from people on the forums, and it was a new system of durability, they were trying to tie it in with the crafting skill, so yes they were trying to innovate. Second, people cried demanding the removal of the mako when all it needed was the controls and environment fine tuning, Bioware actually tried something new there and instead of building on it we got the planet scanning instead because people didn't like the Mako's implementation. Even without the planet scanning ME2 suffered for the lack of Makoness since the entire game felt smaller, and I actually enjoyed the mako and never had a problem with it, so maybe they did improve the Mako for the PC version. The durability system that Obsidian was proposing was even rather mild, yet people seemed to concoct bull**** about how it would force players to do this or that when clearly it wouldn't. Hell, half of them didn't actually seem to have read the actual proposal before screeching. Third, the point I was making with that last bit there is that it would appear the publishers are right, that the idea of anything new is unwanted by the general populace, even amongst those who claim otherwise. I never said that Obsidian got rid of them, so I dunno where you got that, guess you're strawmanning there. It's a shame, but that's the impression I'm starting the get, whether Obsidian goes along with the demands or not is irrelevant to that point. People clearly don't actually want to take risks and try new things.

I'm disappointed, not just in the loss of durability but also in the kneejerk reaction of the community and how, when we were given the opportunity for a game to innovate and take risks because of freedom from publishers instead was shouted and screamed into not doing anything new, proving the publishers right that we don't want anything new or different really. Congratulations you have managed to get rid of the mako before it even got into the game, god forbid they try anything different hell many of you want to get rid of the guns because its not 'fantasy', the publishers were right all along...

You don't need to maintain 100% in either one. The weapons don't take penalty (in the durability one) or lose the bonus (in the sharpness one) until you hit 0%. Until then the weapon functions at full power.

I expected it to be in JA2, because it is a game with A LOT of micromanagement and noncombat activities. My analogy is with Fallout, Arcanum, Dialbo 2 etc.Better analogy will be to say that if I hate fish and seafood, I won't even try salad with even one such ingridient. But since you DO accept durability in JA2 that analogy doesn't work since you will have 'fish' in certain foods, so it can't be the ingredient you hate. And the games you list are so different that you cannot compare them, Diablo and Fallout are nothing alike for instance, so not sure why you would differentiate JA from them.

You are not going to eat food you hate only because it is in a different plate. I, for example, hated every example of durability system in single-player games, with the exception of JA2, and I know that I will not like any form of its implementation in PE.My experience taught me that if people hate some principle, they will hate it regardless of form. It's like time limits - you can introduce them in different ways but in the end it is the same time limit. Yet you acknowledge one game already where you didn't hate it? If it was a system of durability you had already tried your analogy would work but it isn't. A better analogy would be to say you don't like chinese meals and so won't even try one you haven't tried before.

If 90% of the vocal minority reading this forum were thrashing a feature (which isn't happening in this case though) in all likelihood most of the non-vocal majority not reading the forum would also thrash this feature. Or maybe actually playing it they'll love it? Everything said in this thread is pure theorycraft, if people gave it a chance they might love it. Over 32 years of experience has taught me that I and most other people don't really understand what we actually like.

People didn't like the Mako in Mass Effect and whined about it. Instead of taking the criticism and improving it Bioware just removed it, to the detriment of ME2 I felt. Hopefully Obsidian won't listen to those who are not willing to try something and instead keep what they think works and adds to the game.

Just my thoughts but I always thought Double Fine would have problems simply because they were the first: they were the ones who showed just how much money could be raised, before they did it no one expected such a thing was possible including themselves, and they went in expecting to raise 40,000 and got 4 million. They didn't even have an outline of what kind of game it was going to be and have been playing catch up since. They spent alot of time trying to work out just what game their backers wanted, most of whom are quite diverse since the only unifying thing they had was a liking of adventure games and DF is concerned of disappointing them and damaging the chances of other KS working. I like to think of it like this: Double Fine, Obsidian and InXile were all swimming in a lake. DF found a dam and decided to open it, getting a face full of water as it flooded in. The other two, seeing the flood, shouted "Surf's up!" grabbed their surfboards and rode the waves but poor DF got swept away and now has to work out how to get back in control. I hope they do.

Durability is a delicate matter and it is usually done badly but I don't think they shouldn't try it if they want to give it a shot. They went with with KS to be able to do what they want, try new things and take risks that publishers would not normally let them try. To avoid doing something new or controversial because of fear of backlash from people who may end up liking it would be a shame and waste in my eyes.

Heres a thought in regards to those who think one character should be enough to maintain everyone's equipment: who says they have the time or inclination to look after everyone's stuff? What, you expect them to be working away fixing all the armour while everyone else is around the campfire getting pissed? Look after your own damn sword bitches!

Meh... I personally preferred NWN2 over MotB...inculding most of the characters. The only MotB character I liked was that angel chick. I can't even remember the name of any character from MoTB. HM..there was a bold psycho chick too that LUVED me even tough I never did anything. From NWN2 I remember most of them. Sand was cool. Sand was awesome and he was always my main mage but then he didn't have much competition as I despised Qara (current playthrough I'm trying to get as negative influence with her as I can just because, its not hard).

But you need to take the crafting skill to know how to use that whetstone Yeah, and? Have you ever used a whetstone before? I haven't and I wouldn't know the best way to use it or when it should be used. Hollywood makes things like that look easy but it rarely is, in fact I know people who have tried to do such 'simple' things themselves and they report that they found it actually quite dangerous, nearly losing fingers and eyeballs in the attempt.

Items don't 'break' but are just 'damaged', they don't stop working they just need a tune up every now and again, something I can see even legendary artefacts would need. Its not like reforging Narsil more like taking a whetstone to it and replacing the leather on the handle.

I actually like this implementation. Not normally a fan but this has the right mix of simplicity and low impact to avoid becoming a chore for me. It adds a degree of resource management that dungeon delving should have and considering how people were screaming that vancian magic is the best because it added resource and strategic planning I would have thought they would like this too.

Obviously the best ending involves choosing one of three colours while everything else is exactly the same regardless of the choice you make. Obviously.

I'm probably going to be pissing most people off here with this post but bleh Extra Credits I really don't like them. I find that they either state the obvious while dressing it up as if it was some deep insight or state an opinion as if it were fact while creating strawmen in order to back up their argument. I know people like to use their videos to back up their arguments but to me they prove nothing and actually weaken their stance.

Actually do we know there is a fireball spell definitely in PE? Maybe wizards in PE don't get ranged spells and can't act like artillery like in D&D? Instead they have to melee with their spells? Might even be they are designed to take tons of damage and be the tanks while the fighters are the damage dealers? Maybe wizards can only buff? Maybe they only get pimping spells and manage the party's 'relaxation' time?

Ooo I like the sound of that. Could potentially form a group of medieval 'spec ops' stealth bunnies in that case. :D

But THA was never tied to a deity, its creed was "Only the pure of heart can wield me", and in d&d that meant paladins. I don't know I guess I'm biased, because I love paladins and THA. I guess we should wait and see what kind of world this is going to be, and then go from there.Paladins in PE are going to be more like warlords than paladins. They'll each have a cause, but being pure of heart or following a paladin code doesn't appear to be on the cards. Likewise, clerics seem to be different from the usual paradigm, being crusaders instead of priests, and a sword that is called HOLY avenger definitely has divine implications, the line about pure of heart sounds like it could easily refer to someone who is pure on the eyes of god. As paladins in D&D are tied to the gods even when they don't follow one specific god (and in Forgotten Realms I think they did need to be tied to a specific god to get their powers) this is the conclusion I came to. Yeah, I'm not saying you are wrong, just saying what I read about THAs in their description. It's never tied to a god, it's always a tool for the good against evil. But then why would it be a paladin class only weapon in PE? There is no good-evil alignment system in PE which is how paladins were defined in D&D as being pure of heart due to their alignment restriction. I'm not disagreeing with you by the way just to be clear, I do want the THA or something like it in the game I'm just trying to work out from what we know of the PE world what would make the most sense lorewise for such a weapon and what it would need to fit with the class(es).