Ieo

Okay... (yay, charging, that could be implemented in good effect to address the whole threat/aggro thing in that other thread) No attacking while prone--I remember reading that and thinking it would be a form of avoidance, like evade/dodge. And crawling through a dungeon's hidden passage, under a trap, etc. The above scenarios do interact with the environment at a basic level, but topographical information required for the detailed static backgrounds would be over the top, IMO, with regard to combat cover. There are too many mechanical variables against it, unless Obsidian does believe the benefits outweight the disadvantages for creating such a LOS mechanic. (1) Poor usability without free camera in 3D zoom environment (2) Mapping every single topographical element in outdoor and indoor environments for such usage (I imagine a lot of bugs for this alone) (3) Adjusting enemy AI to account for cover techniques (good AI is not a cheap or simple thing to accomplish) (4) Finer adjustment of 'cover' usage depending on prone or standing positions (not really appropriate for an iso game) Mm, I rather doubt most players would actually like that sort of thing added to combat, in relation to the old school IE games. I think it would introduce too much "ground" complexity to a tactical overhead playstyle. We should still be able to make use of large objects as we did in IE, like crates and big boulders and trees, but ground topography where being prone would actually make a difference... too complicated for little benefit, IMO.

Where's the confirmation? (Not that I don't believe you, it's just hard to find a lot of information that's scattered everywhere.)

It's still partially their fault. It's not unreasonable to poke at them every now and then about this. Absolutely. I wouldn't give them free pass, but a lot of variables go into making and shipping a game on the business end that are black box to most people. We have no legal recourse. Even if they just ran off with the money. I've always thought it strange that Kickstarter uses the term "backer," which to me implies investment. It should be donor. DONOR.

Oh, I was visualizing an equal party by assumption for some reason. But yes, party makeup will factor heavily into the scenario. I think it will depend a lot on the engine as well; maybe Unity can do that sort of thing, maybe not. But from a fixed isometric view, practical usability is going to matter most.

I believe that reputation for buggy releases has much to do with publisher pressures as well--release dates, contractual obligations, stuff like that. This Kickstarter is the perfect--the only--opportunity for Obsidian to both break that reputation and stick it back to the publishers. Anyway, as for biting off more than they can chew. Many people have complained that the stretch goals have been too conservative, and I think that's rather telling as to their calculations on what's "too much." Heh, if you think people won't cry about the release date, you got something coming. Kickstarter will be no different from any company. The people will raise pitchforks and hell if Obsidian starts delaying the game. It has been done several times on Kickstarter already, even to the point of people threatening legal action. No, my point wasn't about release dates specifically but the implication of "good buggy 'failed' content" arising from the post I quoted, which would probably just worry people like the OP more.

And if there's any channeling/concentration/cast times for the ranged characters and casters, that immediately throws everything out--if the enemy isn't stupid, we'd probably end up seeing a lot of stand-offs. Not terribly tactical. I'll stick with my LOS play in 3D free camera games like MMOs. (Not into FPS otherwise.)

I believe that reputation for buggy releases has much to do with publisher pressures as well--release dates, contractual obligations, stuff like that. This Kickstarter is the perfect--the only--opportunity for Obsidian to both break that reputation and stick it back to the publishers. Anyway, as for biting off more than they can chew. Many people have complained that the stretch goals have been too conservative, and I think that's rather telling as to their calculations on what's "too much."

I honestly think it would be too much work for regular terrain---now, the IE games (especially BG series, don't remember IWD on that count) did have LOS play for larger objects, bridges, and indoor barriers like crates. I think. It's been a while (holding off a regular replay until BG:EE). But the enemy AI wasn't all that great... They'd often just stand there, I think, rather than trying to charge in or find cover for themselves. I think the key besides 3D terrain representaiton/programming is enemy AI as well. If such a thing were implemented in PE, it could be reduced to stupid cheese by that alone...

Immediate observation: That's a 3D zoom-in environment with free rotating camera. While I like LOS play and all that, the terrain view is going to be more restricted. I don't think it would work well in the locked isometric view; terrain levels could be difficult to see. Specific 3D objects like large crates, sure, but in general.... definitely not on that scale.

Wrong game. This isn't D&D. There is still a class called priest which implies that priests possess unique form of combat abilities and I don't like that. Priests should be a profession like smiths or mercenaries, not classes. If you don't have "priest class" every priest you encounter can be a warrior, a mage or just guy without any abilities, with that class you can be sure that he'll poses some form of combat abilities. The same goes for other professions. If they added "nobleman" as a class you could be sure that almost every nobleman would be a member of that class while now member of every class can be a nobleman. Which is all well and good; I was just pointing out your dislike per "that mean that for example every priest have to wear heavy armors in battles, cast divine spells and use blunt weapons" <---Those are D&D limitations. About classes and profession differences, that's a hard one to split apart in the gaming class tradition, it seems. Is being a druid a way of life or a class? Monk? Or even ranger? Really, the only classes that make any sense by your definition would be only fighter and wizard. Possibly. I get what you're saying, but it seems to be a long tradition in fantasy RPGs that these things are mixed together.

Yeah, Ink Blot quoted it above (thanks, man!). If that does heavily imply that there will be strong camaraderie relationships some steps shy of "romance," I'm all for that. That's the stuff that's tricky to develop in an entertainment venue these days. Anyway, how about them cooldowns?

Here's hoping it's nothing cheesy and it's so completely optional that it's never thrown in your face. Minimal hooks into the main plot; epilogues are fine. Written by psych relationship counselors. I don't want to get this thread locked, though, so I'll just ಠ_ಠ

Thanks. Ahaha, if that isn't open to interpretation, I don't know what is.

Nah-- Feargus on Kickstarter Q&A just today: So.... Yeah, I think we're good on companions and classes for PE right now. World content and quests (chains even!), more of that. A companion or two for the expansion would be interesting.

I don't know who he is or care much about MotB (didn't like NWN1 and not interested in continuing to NWN2), but if his design and writing can mesh well with Avellone's, sure. On the other hand, I was just reading about the design of Rashemen and that sounds fascinating...

No more classes. Definitely not anything with "shadow" in the name; how overdone and boring. Wrong game. This isn't D&D.

That much hyperbole, no one can take you seriously. Also---150 hours would be freakin' awesome. Too bad it won't happen. *pine* Anyone remember the stated hours for the various IE games?

Thanks, Ink Blot. What was that? I miss everything...

1. "The Governator" does over the top, brainless action flicks, PE is an immersive, story driven RPG. 2. The IE games weren't about "power fantasies", and since PE is a game built on their foundation neither should it be. There're plenty of games on the market that deliver that already if that's what you want. 3. You're comparing some modern soldiers firing from a safe high ground position with long range weaponry, to chainmail bikinis ... really? You also saw why what those guys did is a bad idea (the hot casing dropping in his shoe, the burns on his uncovered legs from the casings, in case you missed it.) Torment wasn't. Baldur's Gate was about being a god's child, romancing elves and crushing powerful foes. In ID2 you stopped entire armies. If that's not a power fantasy I don't know what is. It's too early for me to think about what "power fantasy" means exactly, but I do agree with 1 and 3. Context...

So am I reading the description correctly that the PE paladin's skills may be centered AoE? Possibly both offensive/defensive/heal? Because that sounds all sorts of cool to me...

You're right. I will submit to the fact that part of my up front dislike of the game comes from its claim to be a successor to something once held dear, and delivering anything but said claim. That dislike, however, wouldn't make its various, very real, issues outside of that anything but what they were. So, while I concur, I'm not convinced that I'd have viewed it as fine had they not created those circumstances. I posit that, were it not for that single particular pitch link, we would not be seeing as many Dragon Age threads on the PE forums as we do now, thus inviting fewer direct comparisons. It would be far easier to dismiss DA:O on its face as "That's a Bioware generic fantasy Action-Romance RPG, wut?"--which we still can now as a matter of mechanical fact among other things, but that stupid marketing link has sure messed things up. By virtue of that tenuous link, we have players who come here fully expecting there to be an actual relationship when there is none--and there cannot be any. Never has the phrase "spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate" brought such evil.

Oh yeah, when are we going to see art pics of the shirts and mouse pad? Someone probably said something about that somewhere... bugger if I can find it. Edit: Never mind, I see little pics are in the front page tier graphics. Which I never look at (I default to the update page).

There was at least one other thread suggesting this, which I can't find, and I think most of the arguments against could be boiled down to "logistical nightmare for auditions and scheduling and flying in to use proper audio equipment" etc. etc. It sounds neat on its face, but I think it'd be very impractical.

You know, I just reread the paladin description about the "immediate vicinity" bit---if a PE paladin's only casting skills (both offensive and defensive/heal) are based on centered AoE, I think that'd be...very awesome! I may have to play with that, if that's the case. Battle cry: "I am my own fireball!"

Oh, my little aside was about how they did the tiers, exactly. Basically with a lot of things bundled together, it can be harder to evaluate based on personal priorities, and then on the other hand, Obsidian may feel justified to move a single item of a bundle across borders, which is tricky. Basically my thinking is that the vast majority of folks among those middling-high tiers aren't interested in the complete tier bundle but specifics within. For example, the collector's book, soundtrack, T-shirt. If those were merely add-ons entirely without those mid-high tiers, and Obsidian could charge, say, $80 per book and $30 per shirt and $20 per soundtrack, that may have gotten even more revenue in piecemeal fashion without the need for Obsidian to "massage" tiers with over half the KS period gone. (At least, I know several people who are only interested in the game, novella, and book--multiple copies of the book even.) But that's neither here nor there. If the expansion will be an add-on, I'm curious what the price will be. I have no clue what current market trends are for single-player expansions these days that aren't DLC.