Auxilius

Good idea. It's frustrating to give up a quest just because your party doesn't have the required skill. And that's not the only problem that may arise. I remember the quest to become a master at Throwing in Arcanum. You have to go through a big bad maze to get the best throwing weapon of the game. Then you give it to the quest giver, she tells you you're a master now and the quest is done. Except you're short one hell of a weapon. If it weren't for Fate points and the ability to guarantee success at Stealing, I'd had to kill her or travel through the whole continent to find and hire a Stealing expert. Not the best options.

That settles it. Gonna buy it on sale for less than 10 bucks I guess. I hoped Obs would be able to influence the core of what makes South Park but hey. I guess this is the first RPG where I'm going to be evil or at least, enjoying calling names to everyone.

And you didn't understand me. I was talking about jobs in-game.

I expect a healthy range of diverse confrontation options, but a 100% noncombat run will probably be impossible, and I'm fine with that, because it was impossible in the likes of PS:T as well. There's also the mod possibility. Well, that settles it. The thread went a little out of control so i didn't post a lot but I now want to say dire consequences for quests mean there is no quest at all. Imagine how people would react if the jobs you took resulted in such ways, no matter if you're doing this the violent way or not. Unless you're warned, be it subtile or not. Let's consider this point under another angle. Say, killing the bandits also end in a bad way since their families go after you and you're forced to slaughter teens and mothers. So then, while tackle the quest if at the end, you can only screw up? Why going out of your way if the only result is to feel like ****e? I never saw a game do that, except for Spec Ops: The Line, except the player didn't have a choice in the matter anyway. Actually, the results the devs wanted to have was to incite people to actually stop playing, because they considered it was the only winning move. Such game design tends to induce apathy, especially in long games and even dark RPGs like The Witcher 2 didn't dare to do that. Sure, you worked with total asses and the result was often not satisfactory, but the player never worsened the situation. If someone you didn't want gained power, it was outside your scope and your way to resolve the situation brought some good elsewhere nevertheless. Of course, while I'm ranting a bit here, I admit such a new way to approach RPGs could help the medium to grow up, where every consequence of your action wouldn't be all sunshines and rainbows. But then, it needs to be a complete part of the game, one of the major themes. You're not in a morally easy world and shades of gray don't mean you're off the hook. There would no good choices nor bad consequences, only decisions and results. It was a core theme in Spec Ops and that's why it worked. Maybe for another game than Project: Eternity. Adventurer won't be an easy job then.

Dumb? Geez. In that case, be a truly honest and narrow-minded dude and tell you don't want people to enjoy a way of playing that is different from yours. Well, it's been done before. They're actually well-known and popular since a long time. The possibility was there and loved in P:T, same for Fallout 1&2. That was also one way to play in Alpha Protocol. Some missions actually required the player to play it cool and gave you perks for it. It felt great after a tough mission to see those little rewards. That's why I think it's actually possible. I wouldn't consider even talking about it otherwise. But in case the game happened to not be designed that way, like Arcanum was, well, tough luck I suppose.

Doing a pacifist run feel generally good. You outwit everyone, prove the validity of your philosophy, get the upper hand on known and powerful actors. Besides, you have to be tricky and resourceful to succeed. Therefore, any success is very satisfying. But what if there were more consequences? See, it's been several hours since you started the game. You did all the quests in the first village. You could unlock a quest or two as a result if you were a pacifist. After all, if you're good at not killing people, it means some NPCs could come to trust more easily, playing a part on your reputation. People would be less wary to see you arrive in town if you're not known for wiping out everything. Bandits could get c0cky, believing they're not risking anything. New dialogue choices could appear to convince someone who doubt your integrity. Companions could wonder why the hell they trained so hard. If I dared to go further, I could even talk about the stronghold and how a reputation as a good and peaceful sire could convince your new citizens you're a stand-up guy and give you room for some mistakes befoe they riot. But frankly, it would be too complicated. Why am I thinking about this? Well, like I said, while pacifist runs are satisfying by themselves, they can be hard, very hard. Rewarding the player with these little things could stroke his ego nicely. It's easy to implement them and would convince more players to give it a try, therefore giving Obsidian more reasons to devote time to pacifist playstyles.

Yup, coherence is a key. People who keep wondering why they're in this like Bishop in NWN2 do not make very endearing characters. That's why people disliked so much the party in Dragon Age 2, or Morrigan in DA1. It's okay to complain but nobody want to hang out with angsty crybabies who whine endlessly on the same matter. If you share a goal, you buckle up for the sake of teamwork. Otherwise, you're just a child.

The unexpected: Chris ragequits/breakdowns/wallows in sorrow and shame. At this point, I expect to see a punching bag named Virgil somewhere in P:E with this note if you hover the mouse over it "damn son, is t'is satisfying to sweat dat fat n' punch dat bag". Or a tombstone.

Reading the Codex, Brother None mentioned they are working on more tiers (might take some time, though). The pace this went over was a bit faster than anticipated. Well, I certainly hope so. For 95$, it was worth it. For 110$, not so much. But I'm weak and now I'll pledge such a big amount sooner or later. I can't wait until my collector edition collects the dust on my shelves.

Holy flying skull, was that fast! I can't even grab one of those boxed copy for 95$ anymore. The only ones remaining are now worth 110$ for the exact same content and they're still going down like nazis on a french beach. I know Inxile know their stuff and limited those copies so people wouldn't hesitate but damn, that's way too fast. I guessed I'd have to pledge now and remove my payment if I couldn't afford it by the end of the month but the goods are not very worth it. Better let the hype go.

I'd prefer the Arcanum solution with 3 types of party's NPCs: 1) Those who are close to the plot (Virgil, Raven, Magnus...) 2) Those who play a part in the world but are not related to the plot (Franklin Payne, Z'an Al'urin...) They truly help to make the world a living thing. 3) Others who are just mercenaries or provide a wanted skill. I think there is a good middle between uber important characters and cohorts. With them, you can create the party you want. Besides, since there is a stronghold, you just recruit everyone and give them jobs.

Well, I bought Bioshock 3 times. First, a collector edition before I realized my graphic card was too old and I would need to buy a new computer before I run the game. Sold. Second, normal edition when I got a new computer. Third when I bought a collector edition, again, for 20 mere bucks. It felt stupid, yup, but it happened over the course of 3 years and I spent as much as what the first collector edition cost me so...

Agreed. NPCs act too much like willing slaves in RPGs. A leader must prove he's worthy of his title. It was especially grating in NWN2. You could treat your followers like crap and they'll keep following you no matter what. Of course, it can be difficult to implement but being able to find an equilibrium thanks to good leadership would be extremely rewarding. Just to get back a little on the first topic, travels affecting negatively the PC's relationships is a given but it could become a scrappy mechanic real fast. But like I said earlier, if it means you've to juggle back and forth, why not? A character could love to travel, especially if he's been with the PC since the first day or nurture some feelings for him. On the other hand, the Wizard who needs to study wouldn't like to stay far of his lab for too long. But I wonder if it wouldn't force the player to ignore this kind of guy. A good way to bypass the problem would be the morale bar. I think it is truly a good idea. PE is party-based after all.

It's pretty much self-explanatory. I really want to get my hands of a new Obsidian RPG, but at the same time, it's South Park... At least, I hope I can antagonize Cartman for the whole duration of the game.

Whenever you travel with people, you generally bond, especially if you're on an adventure. You get to save their life, they get to save your life; you eat, drink and sleep together, sometimes over a camp fire; you meet new people, fight new threats and generally have to use teamwork to be able to get out of tricky situations; you share the loot and the gold and come out as a better, more experienced (wo)man. Then, why do I always a better relation with the Fighter I left at the tavern ? While we tend to agree on a lot of points, just because I stroked his ego once or twice shouldn't mean he's my best buddy. I think travels should naturally improve relationships. Since Project Eternity doesn't use the D&D morality system, it also mean we can tackle more morally grey issues. Sure, as someone who tend to good-oriented (if greedy) in my RPGs, I should hate the guts of the token psycho of my party, but he proved himself incredibly valuable. As a player, I feel like I owe him something, so should do my characters. On the other side, left out characters could threaten to leave. After all, unlike they're getting paid to guard the stronghold or something, they're just wasting their time. A flexible system could mean you've to change the party regularly and make the most of what you have without having to juggle everybody, even if I'm the kind of man who think limitations build strengh. If you really dislike some dudes and by no mean, want to have them in your regulars whatsoever, you could also convince to take them a job as mercenaries, watchers or crafters so they can bring some gold and bacon back home for the sake of the goal we share. Hey, it could even be interesting side-quests where NPCs would be the central point. You could see what their life is without the hero. Finally, always taking the same dudes with you could make them tired or strained over time.

I just finished XCOM, and yeah, it is much more satisfying to play in Ironman. It feels like every choice matters and you're truly living the story, instead of playing it. Of course, XCOM isn't a text-heavy game. But I know I won't able to NOT tick the box where Ironman will appear. Besides, it's a perfect opportunity to go for that Pacifist Run I want to do.

I checked my CIS privilege earlier and it looks like I am. I guess I'm fighting the good fight.

I'm going to write something innovative but whoah, 23 pages on boobplates? What the hell? Is this really a subject that need to be studied deeply when at the end of the day, it comes to "boobplates = bad", "u no fun" and "oh no not again :h2g2:". Come on people, we're fighting over pixels here. It won't be a photorealistic game and won't have the technology to show the differences between plates and boobplates. Who the ****amamie care?

I got an idea! Make every character in PE a man! With beards. Awesome beards. Like the ZZ Top. See? Problem solved, let's go home guys.

I dunno. xkcd tends to be a smug prick who think he knows what people are truly thinking and what is good in the world for everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if it was serious. And panama hats are cool you jerk .

Arcanum, hands down. And I'm sad Baldur's Gate (2) is so popular because I tried countless times BG1 and couldn't get myself to like the game, meaning even if I tried my best to get into BG2, a superior game according the everyone, the experience would have been incomplete. Therefore, I never played both. And the lack of NWN2/MotB is saddening too.

Nope, I don't want to struggle through 13 mega-levels of pain to reach a heavily story-driven part of the world.

You're welcome, Josh. And, uuuh, better forget what happened last night... We cool?

I'll go with pets here. Otherwise, more companions, like, one per class, yup.

Considering how much money the goodies are going to eat, I suppose no more stretch goal is fine. I still want pets, it can't be too time-or-money-consuming.