generic.hybridity

I didn't mind the Dragon Age 1 portraits so much but I think that old school portraits are better,

They're always a nice touch. I did like the Arcanum ones, though I do think that background choice shouldn't be too outlandish unless there is a link to the story somewhere. If it just jiggers with your stats then it should be fairly tame.

Some of the suggestions are silly and even counter to the aims stated by Obsidian. I have no doubt that it wont actually effect the development of the game. If you take the "include Bioware" thread for example, the result of the poll was a resounding no. So whilst there may exist a few people who aren't with the program it seems like they are in the minority. Though maybe the comments on the Kickstarter site give a different impression.

I do like perma-death but I must admit that I used to just reload in games with permadeath until I had access to the resurrection spell. There is a lot more tension knowing that your party member will actually die rather than lie down for a moment. If they could work the life death mechanic into the story like TNO in Planescape then I think it would be going in the right direction.

Obsidian does pretty well with factions usually. FO:NV had some pretty interesting interactivity with regards to them.

Even if it uses the DSIII Engine it will probably handle and control quite differently. It wont be designed for consoles for a start.

Good riddles are a fantasy tradition.

I always like the epilogue crawl which summarises the impact you had on the world. All the little side quests that you completed and a small vignette to let you know the consequences. Doesn't need to be world changing in any sense. Merely just to demonstrate your actions effected this virtual world.

The poll result seems fairly emphatic. Honestly I'd like to see the Obsidian team be able to work on their own without publisher or IP restrictions. If they contract some extra designers to do so: more power to them. Getting Bioware as a company seems unnecessary.

Guns can be an interesting issue to deal with in a fantasy world. A great leveller of sorts. Arcanum dealt with a lot of these sorts of issues. I'm really interested as to what direction they go with guns/muskets.

Interesting and varied designs are always a plus!

Probably the setting. It was a really great setting to explore crazy ideas in. I wonder if Eternity's setting will be similar in its esoteric quality.

Often the best developed characters/those with the most content are those with Romances. Which is why I am in favour of romances. If they can do deep Party interaction without romance (definitely possible) I would be equally satisfied.

If tea parties are confirmed i'll up my pledge to $250. Straight up.

This is something I can get behind!

I believe they've said they're developing a custom ruleset.

Not a bad idea.

Nothing wrong with speculating and discussing things. Some players demanding features if vocal enough might give Obsidian useful feedback. I doubt of course they would allow it to change or take over their vision for the game. But influence or allow them to take into consideration player considerations is probably quite useful. They're after all not designing the game in a vacuum.

I For an extra $900k over Obsidian's base goal, we better get tea parties! I actually really want to have tea parties in our player houses now. I'm sure the devs would be able to pull off the requisite emotional depth and witty banter such a scenario would entail. Screw stronghold quests, I want to sweat it out trying to divine whether my part's fighter prefers Earl Grey or English Breakfast. More importantly Soy or Full Cream!?

It's a valid artistic choice to have limited voice acting. I think it also allows for much more branching and therefore gets the thumbs up from me. Sorry OP but I have to say NO to the idea of voice acting ALL the dialogue.

Hmm. I think its likely we'll have 8 companions at least. Given that it seems likely the game will reach those funding levels at its current rate. If they are well written, this is a sufficient number. The number of base classes means little if we do not know how they play and i'm sure each will play differently depending on how you level up. Unlike in IE games where there was a set way each class levelled. For a proper comparison you'd need to identify distinct level up paths for the 5 base classes as compared to the static DnD classes of the IE games. We really don't have enough information to make that judgment yet but I doubt that the classes will be comparable to taking 5 classes out of the infinity engine. Which would be quite restrictive.

Whilst it would be nice there are probably business reasons that they wouldn't mind keeping the toolset exclusive. That way they control content generation. Equally releasing and supporting a toolset actually equates to having to support two sets of software. Developer tools are often significantly more difficult to use and less portable than they would have to be if they received a public release. Basically they can focus their resources better. Or at least I imagine this is the case. I would personally love a toolset release.

How droll... But it is good to see some trolling that inverts the stereotype of gaming discussion boards. Would read again.

Personally I find that this sort of question depends upon the style of game. In one which is focusing on story and defeating dungeons and such. Having to return to the same dead dungeon just to retrieve loot I was unable to carry is a little frustrating, though it really depends on how many trips. But I can deal with it. In a game like FO:NV which as part of the core experience is living and surviving in the wasteland seems to lend itself to mechanics which can enhance this feel. I cannot think of an appreciable way in which money weighing stuff would enhance an IE style game. (Having said this details are of course at this stage very sparse and I could be wrong and would be happy to) Not being able to cart money around though means they probably have to implement a banking system of some sort. Which to me seems unnecessary. I can deal with limiting equipment carrying but then reducing the amount of gold I can carry seems to be creating a problem. The economy would of course then relate more to the weight of the currency (If it didn't of course you would need a wheelbarrow to carry your gold to purchase things with) which from an economics perspective could be interesting but would probably take away time from creating other more interesting mechanics and story. It introduces a balance issue where there was none in a part of the game which I usually care little about.

Thanks for responding on the boards like this Josh. Gotta say, i'm liking everything I am hearing about the direction of this title.