metiman

Oh yeah. No Alpha Protocol style streamlined-dialogue-for-speed. Ugh. I hated that. It's not worthy of Obsidian.

So the idea with breastplate would be that it would have enough extra room that even large breasted warriors wouldn't be uncomfortable? Perhaps. I'm not sure how real breastplate attaches. Whether it is loosely fitted or tight against the undergarments. I find human female warriors a bit unrealistic anyway. Well, unless steroids are in the game. My female characters are mages and thieves. Not fighters and clerics. Although I could also imagine one as a Kensai type of character with a Katana. Uma Thurman in Kill Bill seemed plausible. But Arnold is a lot more plausible as a Conan the Barbarian type.

You do realise that Obsidian intend to actually sell this game - correct? And make a sequel, (hopefully)? They are hoping to reach an audience much larger than just the people who kickstart it. Yes, but not by pandering. If more people like and buy the game I'm sure they will be very happy, but from what I have read in interviews making as much money as possible is not the main point of this project. Making a genuinely good game with complete freedom and no restrictions other than budget is the point. If they wanted a profit maximizing project they would make a Dragon Age or Skyrim or even WoW sort of game like everyone else is doing. Greed (and bad taste on the part of gamers) has utterly decimated cRPGs.

What's the problem with having a strength requirement for certain melee weapons? Seems logical to me. Armor as well. Real two handed swords are heavy enough that you need some significant strength to handle them properly. And that's even more true with war hammers, maces, flails, and morning stars which would weigh a ton. A mage carrying a giant weapon seems ridiculous to me. Real longbows also require strength to use properly. If you have a weak character you should be restricted to small weapons like daggers or short swords and crossbows (or firearms) for ranged.

Uh, that was the ENTIRE point of IWD series. They are tactical IE combat games. I understand that. I don't have a problem with them existing. As a rule I just don't enjoy them. IIRC, Black Isle was only making such a game because it was so much easier and quicker to make than their usual style. Not because they genuinely wanted to make a game only about combat with battle after battle after battle ad nauseum. I did think the combat itself was enjoyable (although I prefer 2nd ed. rules) There's just only so much I can take before succumbing to the repetitiveness of it. I could never play much of Space Invaders for a similar reason.

I see this thread has gone off the rails, but I do support easy levels of difficulty as long as it's easy to implement. Having a wide range of difficulty is a very important game mechanic. I'd rather they erred on the side of too difficult for balancing purposes, but having more difficulty options is always a good thing. So long as it doesn't require a whole new difficulty system to implement. Personally I'd prefer a default difficulty level similar to BG2 with SCSII and sane options (i.e. no teleporting demons or enemies that can disappear every round just before you can hit them or thieves with an infinite number of invisibility potions) or ToEE, which had a great default difficulty level IIRC. Challenging but not impossible. I'm very glad indeed that we have Tim Cain on this project. I hope he can insert a bit of ToEE into Project Eternity's combat mechanics.

1. Pandering to anyone. No pandering allowed in a crowdfunded game. Make the game that you would want to play. Period. 2. Cool Downs (Ugh). They have the power, on their own, to utterly ruin a game. 3. Level scaling that you cannot turn off or any level scaling more than BG2 did (which was already too much). 4. Trash mobs or too little variety in opponents. (Dragon Age, I'm looking at you). 5. Play fair. No cheating on the part of the enemy combatants. Anything they can do the player should be able to do and vice-versa. The only exception to this might be gods/deities who may be able to spam lightning bolts indefinitely or whatever. Making them insanely difficult so that they are basically undefeatable is a better option though. I dont' see the need to break the game rules even for gods. 6. Difficulty levels that are half-baked. No "all enemies do 50% more damage" as a difficulty option. If only because this violates (5). 7. Lazy AI scripting. I'm not particularly impressed that some British dude was able to significantly improve on the AI scripting in BG2 with Sword Coast Strategems. Not that I have any major complaints about vanilla BG2 AI, but it shouldn't be that easy to improve upon. Put some real effort into the AI even if the scripts get very long. Fighting an enemy that makes many of the same choices a min-maxing player would is hugely enjoyable. And enemies should actually make use of all their abilities. This is especially true for high level mages and clerics. Mages should make use of immobilizing spells like web (or whatever). Thieves should try to backstab. Rangers should summon pets. Ideally these sorts of things could be controlled in the difficulty menu or .ini file, but it's better to err on the side of the enemies being too smart, rather than too stupid. 8. Being able to auto-pause at the end of each round as with IE games is not optional. Auto-pausing at other selectable points is also nice. Without this strategic combat is overly difficult or impossible. 9. Anything that Bethesda or EAware would do in their modern games. Or any sort of MMOG mechanic. If Dragon Effect or Oblivion/Skyrim or WoW has it then it is almost certainly a bad idea. See point about pandering. 10. Cartoonish graphics. Ewww. A lot of us are over 30.

Jeez. What happened to this thread? Just a minor quibble. The fall of Bioware happened between NWN and DA1 or possibly even between BG2 and NWN. Not DA2. That is a proven fact. If you like and play DA1 then I have no idea why you would want to back this project. I think you will hate it utterly, but it's your money. Do what you want with it. And I certainly appreciate your help in funding a game for 'old school' gamers when you are clearly not one yourself. I always admire generosity. I would certainly not contribute one penny to a crowdfunded Dragon Age 1 sequel-in-spirit.

Definitely try BG2 instead of BG1. Strangely that is the order I would recommend anyone play them. Once you've played through BG2 including ToB you will be much more inclined to forgive BG1's faults. BG2 is nearly tied with PS:T as one of my all time favorite games, but I could never get far into BG1 at all before quitting even though I have played through BG2ToB probably something like 50 times.

I didn't particularly like IWD2 or BG1, but I loved PS:T and BG2 and FO and FO2 and liked IWD. IWD2 just went too far in terms of being only about combat. Many of the battles were still quite enjoyable, but I lose interest about 20% in and have never liked the first big battle. IWD was a bit more balanced, but it was still too much about combat and I have never been able to finish it. Been halfway through lots of times though and always enjoy it up until the point where I get bored. BG1 was not Black Isle's fault and I can't really explain why I have never been able to get into it. Perhaps the start of the game is too difficult. Like the IE engine though and still think great games could be made with it. Too bad EA is going to hoard the license forever. It should be released as open source. There is a certain point in terms of dated graphics where I have a great deal of trouble playing a game these days. The last few Might and Magic games are just below that point for me. BG1 is right at that point. All the rest of the IE games are just above that point. Every time I replay BG2 I think about how surprisingly good the graphics and character models are. Although I like eye candy as much as anyone else and really enjoy photorealism and intensely detailed bump mapped character models, graphics at the level of IWD2 and BG2 are 100% adequate for me.

Happy birthday oh Great One. 402 trips around the sun is not so many for an immortal such as yourself. I always suspected that anyone who could write PS:T was not human or frankly of-this-earth. I am also disappointed that ego stroking is considered a necessity in a crowdfunded game like this. I'd actually prefer that the NPC like or dislike me based on my choices in the game or just because, not because the player himself needs ego stroking. I would like to think that no one at least here on the forums would want or expect their ego to be stroked by their companions. About the only concession I'd want for game play purposes is to have the option of not allowing them to leave the party if they dislike you, although this might require a certain minimum intimidation skill (or equivalent). I don't consider that desk to be messy. I hate to think of Master Chris Avellone (I believe it is Master, not Mr.) wasting time on organizing the stuff on his desk into neat piles. Total waste of time. Embrace Entropy.

I would definitely prefer interspecies romances. Think King Kong or the lovely Jenny Agutter and her werewolf lover in . I am picturing a romance between a little elven hottie and an ancient red dragon. Aerie and Firkraag meet and fall in love.

I definitely don't think Obsidian should say anything about possible romances until October 17th. Then they can announce how the designers also hate romances and really don't want to write them and how they all laugh at Bioware for turning their games into romance simulators and how that is a cautionary tale for them.

If there is a surrender mechanism for beaten foes they could also be used in this manner. A sort of one sided unsentimental romance. A slavery system could be combined with running a prostitution ring. Forced prostitution could be a way to raise money. Perhaps you could eventually open a brothel with the prisoner-prostitutes kept in cages and chained spread-eagled to their bed posts to provide customers with 24 hour service. Not just women, but men could also be used in this way. Even children if they are present in the game. I'm picturing giant bird cages for some reason. Eventually you could open such brothels in every major city accumulating great wealth. Your party members would be acutely aware that they could also end up like that if they cross you or annoy you in any way. If you've seen the film deadgirl you'll have a good idea of the sort of thing I'm talking about. (Excellent film BTW).

I admit that the meat-on-a-stick from Ultima Underworld II and the apple pies in Arx Fatalis always made me crave such things. It makes me think that product placement could be used as a way to raise more money for projects like this. I liked the use of food in Ultima Underworld and Arx Fatalis, but in other games it hasn't seemed so special. FONV had a nice variety of food, but for some reason it didn't make me crave any of it. Of course if food is included there is always the possibility of poisioning it. A sub-quest in Arx used just such a mechanic and it was great fun.

There has been talk of a subduing game mechanic. I like that. Perhaps we could introduce a similar component for romances. For player characters with low charisma who do not have even the slightest hope of romancing one of his/her sexy companions an option to use the intimidation skill or the same technique used to subdue a dragon might be interesting options. The pc might essentially hold the character against their will and force them to engage in various sexual acts and forms of humiliation. Perhaps even letting all the other party members have a go as well. They would obey you not out of loyalty or some sappy puppy love, but out of stark fear for their life. They know you are dangerous. They don't doubt that you would kill them if they attempted to escape and torture them if they are captured. That would seem a lot more interesting than sappy girlish romances.

To be fair, we are investors. Well, at least anyone donating more than $50-$65. Those could be considered pre-orders. Anything above that is a genuine investment, but money is not the expected return. Such investors are hoping for a game that would not otherwise be made or a game that would not otherwise be as good. For any one crowdfunding 'investor' to expect to directly dictate game content is absurd of course. Obsidian's promise is simply to make the kind of game they have agreed to make. The kind of game they might have made as Black Isle. A sequel-in-spirit to some of the better IE games. A PS:T meets BG2 meets IWD sort of thing. I hope that Obsidian will make the kind of game that they can genuinely be proud of, a game-as-artistic-creation, a game that the great MCA and Tim Cain, and Josh Sawyer would themselves enjoy playing. Artistic integrity demands nothing less.

It's not about shallow or not shallow. It's about making things at least slightly more realistic and about having to sacrifice other character traits if you want to be attractive. It's ridiculous for a pc with a charisma of say 10 to be romancing anyone. I cannot think of anything about gagging for a virtual shag that is not shallow.

I don't want romances in the game, but if they are in they should be realistic. It should be Charisma based. You should have to actually allocate ability score points toward being physically attractive. Success or failure should have nothing to do with how nice you are to the character you want to romance. Also the scale should not be linear. I'm thinking of a table like the following: charisma score (D&D style stats based on a roll of three 6 sided die) 18: 40% chance of success (at romancing chosen character) 17: 30% chance of success 16: 15% chance of success 15: 5% chance of success 14: 1% chance of success and anything under 14 means you cannot romance anyone. For unnatural creatures like Fall-from-Grace or Kaelyn the Dove who might have a charisma score of 20 you might have a 75% chance or something like that.

I absolutely love Two Steps from Hell - Skyworld. It strongly reminds me of Clint Mansell's Lux Aeterna from Requiem for a Dream.

Of course. This is a an excellent game mechanic. Quite fun. And I agree that if you can't catch them either in melee or ranged before they leave the map they should be able to escape along with their belongings just as the pc hopefully could. This makes it important to have at least one character skilled in ranged combat adding to the strategy of the game as well.

You do realize that there is a difference between computer games and real life don't you? Why would you be hitting on Arcade or Veronica in the first place? Would your first thought upon meeting ED-E to hit on him as well?

I like porn just fine as long as it's amateur, but I don't want any in my RPGs thank you very much. If there's no sex then I don't need to know about a character's sexual preference.

42, PS:T. I can't believe the number of geezers here. I was expecting nearly everyone to be in their teens, but almost no one is or at least they are not admitting it. First cRPG love and first cRPG purchase: Ultima Underworld. First PnP module: (B2) Keep on the Borderlands. First adventure game: Zork. First computer game: Star Trek (SPACEWR) on a DEC PDP-11. First favorite games: Castle Wolfenstein, Archon, and Crush, Crumble, and Chomp. First computer: Atari 400 with 48kB RAM and a disk drive (I was too poor for an Apple II or TRS-80). Any geezers here from the Compuserve GAMER cRPG forum? It would be interesting if Mara or Isabelle L'Elf showed up here.

http://vimeo.com/18479035 Lots of options but you haven't actually defined what you mean by a "romance". Do you mean an in-game love interest like Deionarra in PS:T or do you mean a Bioware style romance minigame? Without a definition your choices are meaningless. I think as part of the main plot they can be as good as the writer's ability. As a minigame that is not part of the plot they are a waste of developer resources.