Luckmann

I would very much prefer it if we got something like in Baldur's Gate. Not Baldur's Gate 2. Baldur's Gate.

When your social causes start to interfere with your work, particularly as a writer or artist, it is time to take a few steps back and ask yourself what the hell you're doing. Stop trying to fit square pegs into the round holes. I would have been less upset if I could actually handle it in an adult or mature manner. I should have been able to earn that disapproval I got from him. Likewise, having a man-whore throw himself at you is almost as disturbing in a game as in reality.

It depends very much on how the game is shaped and how it works. Honestly, I have little interest in multiplayer as it was in BG/IWD.

Hardcorer, preferably. Like mentioned in another thread, I would like it if there was intrinsic "Hardcore" (as in FONV) aspects to the game. This would be in addition to "old-time-y" game mechanics. It is impossible to actually discuss the merits of OP:s opinions unless he explains what mechanics he doesn't like.

How... how would that even make sense?

That's about the worst thing they could do, all departments, of all time.

My only fear in this is that with so few companions, it will end up akin to Bioware's "catch-em-all" BFF-collection "parties", with very little true choice in the way your party plays out or is shaped. This is doubly true if you "just happen" to get one of every class - something that by itself stifles replayability, but is also such a trope, as if you're making them for the sake of making them, rather than to have interesting, fitting characters. Mechanically fitting or appropriate choices is in no way mutually exclusive to good storytelling, but it is just so incredibly boring to see "The Ranger", "The Warrior", "The Mage", rather than characters developed for their own sake. Is there no chance that we'll be seeing more companions than there are classes, or more relevant class-options than there are companions assigned to their roles? I was so very, very, very much hoping that we'd be able to get away from the ever-shrinking party options of modern RPGs. I want to do themed parties again. Bleh. I know exactly what you mean but I don't think that's what he meant. Given the games this is styled after, it's likely that while your part will be 6 adventurers, that 6 will be comprised of a selection from a larger cast, forcing you to choose which characters join you. My hope is that it won't be like NWN2 and DA:O where even if you do not have a character in your party they still count as being in your group. No, the main games has exactly 5 potential companions. It then grows with every added class: http://www.kickstart...-eternity/posts Well. 6 classes and 6 companions, now. But still.

Kill it. Preferably with several different kinds of fire.

I chose #1, "Brutally realistic", but I want to make something clear here: "Realism" doesn't necessarily mean "Brutal", or rapes, murders, and definitely not "sociopathic disorder". There are good things and there are bad things, and the fact of the matter is that during much of European history, people have lived relatively quiet lives in relatively serene surroundings - not sunk into post-apocalyptic destitute hellholes filled with suffering and purgatory-ish-ness. ...sociopathic disorder? Dear gods, man, where do you live anyway?

Including them for the sake of including them would quite possibly be the worst decision ever. It felt incredibly forced in FONV.

While she does join your party immediately after the introductory cutscene, you can dismiss her with just two clicks. She doesn't have to stay in the party in order for the game to progress. That's not how I remember it. She even had some weird magic belt or something that made killing her impossible, before she was kidnapped by Irenicus. I might be wrong. It's been years since I last played BG2. You can't kill her in the starting dungeon, that is correct, but you can dismiss her, and you can kill her immediately efter rescuing her. I consider BG2 rather badly written, myself. It was mechanically superior to BG1, but story-wise, it wasn't very good. Everything I dislike about modern RPGs started with Baldur's Gate 2. It just wasn't as bad, yet, and I still consider Baldur's Gate 2 very, very good. If you cheese enough, at least Baldur's Gate 2 is very easy to solo. It does require that you abuse the game mechanics, though.

My only fear in this is that with so few companions, it will end up akin to Bioware's "catch-em-all" BFF-collection "parties", with very little true choice in the way your party plays out or is shaped. This is doubly true if you "just happen" to get one of every class - something that by itself stifles replayability, but is also such a trope, as if you're making them for the sake of making them, rather than to have interesting, fitting characters. Mechanically fitting or appropriate choices is in no way mutually exclusive to good storytelling, but it is just so incredibly boring to see "The Ranger", "The Warrior", "The Mage", rather than characters developed for their own sake. Is there no chance that we'll be seeing more companions than there are classes, or more relevant class-options than there are companions assigned to their roles? I was so very, very, very much hoping that we'd be able to get away from the ever-shrinking party options of modern RPGs. I want to do themed parties again. Bleh.

Depends entirely on the setting. I simply do not know enough to make a decision either way. My immediate reaction is "Yes", but it comes with so many other, small things that would have to be worked into the universe, which I am not sure is appropriate. So I stand firmly on the non-existant "Maybe" option.

Voted #1, but if I could, I'd definitely vote for both #1 & #2.

You know, all those woes are easily fixed by not having any romance options. At all. Which is why I voted "None of the above". I'd prefer no romances at all, to bad romance options. Ultimately, I care very little for the romance options. Mostly, they just make me groan because they are badly done, forced, or both. I love how in Dragon Age, you can end up in a romance just by being nice to someone, they'll suddenly ask you if you want a relationship. Say no, or tell Zevran to "butt off" (no pun intended) and your influence tanks. Thinking of it, it's the same in Mass Effect. God, all those romances are just so horrible...

I chose option #2, but ultimately, #3 would also be fine, because at a certain point, elves are not elves just because they have pointy ears. "New" races doesn't have to be terribly unique, but I would definitely prefer new races - or even better, actual races and not just species nicknamed "races". That is, humans. Different humans. With different proficiencies, cultures and features. Throw out all the fantasy "races" and give us some actual races, with magic/divinity involved or not, doesn't matter to me, but I would rather have Aasimar, Tieflings and Genasi as "fantastical" variations of humans, than Elves, Dwarves and Orcs.

This. I've completely stopped buying games unless they are future-proof; i.e. unless I can freely install it whenever and wherever I see fit, I don't want it. As much as I look forward to "Project Eternity", I will not be getting it unless it is DRM-free.

I would kill for a "Hardcore" system that is intrinsic to the system. What I mean by that is that it should not be in Fallout: New Vegas. In FONV, it was "glued on" and optional. It was well done, but ultimately, the game didn't truly accomodate it. A "Hardcore" system should be fully integrated into the game and not optional. It should be planned for and taken into account at every turn, making inns matter and food - when appropriate - scarce.

While I am hoping for 5mil, I nontheless maintain a healthy dose of realism and expect ~3mil.

I want something that doesn't feel forced or politically correct for the sake of being politically correct, like we so often see these days. I want a believable universe, not a make-believe mirror of the current cultural hegemony in our own civilization. Romances can be well done, but often, they're just tropes and going-through-the-motions. If they are included, don't forget options, options, options. I think anyone going for an "evil" romance in Baldur's Gate II for example, was sorely disappointed. Or anyone playing a human; 3 options. All elves. Le sigh. Edit: Unless you were female, of course. In which case you got Anomen. Which is, amazingly, even worse.

I would like a tree-fortress, with an inn and dungeon, and an customizeable airship anchored amongst the branches. I'm serious. And then you'd travel around with that airship, from town to town, region to region, or nation to nation. So that no matter where you went, you'd have that "hub" or "base" with you. And then you'd have a real, major "home base" in the fortress. Furthermore, I'd like to see the player "home" significantly tied to your choice of race, class, and choices made in the story, subquests or universe. Different choices should result in you being able to recruit different characters or vendors, or get different upgrades. For example, if you can fit a temple into the fortress (or whatever we end up with), that should have a profound and long-lasting effect on almost everything else. Your choice of race could make the difference between a wall of living hedges defending your keep, or a massive thick wall covered in spikes.

Dear god.../hug/

I'll buy it on a console. Heh, no wonder people are fleeing the PC as a gaming platform when Steam is on the prowl.

I now want a "E for Endangered" T-shirt.

I love how he tries very hard to find nice things about Fallout 3.