Ieo

There's another tack to this. The Kickstarter model in itself produces a cognitive dissonance (someone else suggested it and I believe that's right, but I forget who/where), not easily or impossible to dismiss for many consumers. Yes, they still see themselves as consumers rather than "donors." We may talk about fairness and other ethical lines atop business concerns, but it's important to remember that Kickstarter by no means constitutes a legal contractual obligation of any sort between the backers and the business proposer--this much is fact. So why is that? To avoid any legal entanglements, it's in Kickstarter's own interests to absolve itself of any obligation and arbitration regarding failed projects, so semantically, it's simply far easier to shift all risk onto the backers as a donation venue (as opposed to "investment")--this is especially true for smaller and less public projects with inexperienced creators, where the risk of successfully backed ventures failing is quite real. In that case, KS can certainly say, "Sorry, but you donated to them. Tough?" Project Eternity by Obsidian is in an entirely different class--legally, yes, the minutiae are the same--but gamers and the public media view this phenomenon (including Wasteland 2, but this is even bigger in abstraction) as a turning point in the gaming industry. The fact that a major, living, experienced software developer studio is involved has increased the stakes considerably--and does not help with the cognitive dissonance of the KS model at all. Because there is no room for failure. No pressure, Obs! Obsidian is seasoned and knows their numbers, so we expect their budgeting to be sensible. We fully expect the product will be delivered, unlike a bunch of the much smaller indie propositions. And due to this not-unfounded expectation, PE's KS page has essentially turned into a store. I can't say I blame any backer for waffling over tiers by the reward level, since I'm certainly one of them, but then that also means that it's rational for backers to evaluate the tiers with higher expectations of specific and exclusive rewards, since we know the game is going to happen. When higher tiers are diluted (the ones that stand out to me would be the beta key and hardcover collector's book), it makes perfect sense for people "shopping" at those levels to say "If this thing I really want, which I know Obsidian will provide, is going to be dropped from $500 to $250, then does it make sense to stay at $500 when the KS is already successful?" And that is a fair question. For most people, those dollars are still valuable against necessities like rent and bills. That's why it would be better if Obsidian only added new things to tiers rather than move or break out rewards unless those add-on rewards are evaluated in full against their original source tiers; the addition of Wasteland 2 and the expansion are special cases because those are definitely going to be available post-ship, and thus represent lost sales. But those higher tiers with exclusives applicable only to this backer period--the collector's book, extra swag, etc.--such is life in retail that some things are simply exclusive to those willing to part with more money (not necessarily richer). (To be honest, I think Obsidian should have gotten rid of all tiers between $25 and $500, where $500 is the first tier to offer backer creation into the game, and then just do add-ons for everything else. But the past is the past, so I think it's better to remain and just do more additions adjusting for relative item value.)

. . . There are games, actual tactically challenging games, that this game can actually pull from and Obsidian have already named such games themselves. Why would anyone here want to look to DA:O for anything . . . literally anything? Especially when it comes to the subject matter of this thread? DA:O and DA2 are prime examples of how dumbed down and simplified every aspect of modern RPGs are becoming. Why would you look to that when trying to make a better game, especially a game pulling from the RPGs Obsidian has mentioned? The little good there was has been done better in other games, mostly older games. That's not something I'd glad of. It actually makes me quite sad, and it certainly doesn't make me feel that I, and others who share my opinion, are somehow better than those who do not. Project Eternity should learn nothing from DA:O except for its mistakes---"mistakes" only in the sense that it was marketed to be something it was not. I could have accepted the trash if it wasn't a poser game trying to be something else in order to rake in nostalgia cash. The sole link between PE and DA:O is that both mentioned "Baldur's Gate" in the pitch. And in the case of DA:O, that link should be severed completely and cauterized with Balor's tongue. DA:O was probably fine in itself, on its own, without any of the marketing links, being true to itself as different. That's where the current disgust comes from. Liars. Okay, Alistair was still better than Anomen by miles, I'm sure.

Totally agree. "Healing" should incorporate combat fervor and "will to go on" in a fight, not only injuries. Just a random comment about this concept. LotRO does not have health but a "morale" bar, so the idea is that "healing" is related to one's morale in combat. An example heal skill would be "bolster courage." Interesting concept but everyone just treats it as normal health anyway. I suppose the reason why this mechanic is used is because Tolkien's world is low-magic, and there's no such thing as a rez spell in the sense of dead coming back to life; instead of character death, there's defeat and retreat, and instead of a raise dead/resurrection spell, there are skills like "rally." Carry on...

As long as they carry unique twists that distinctly set them apart--I'm not worried about chanter, but so long as paladin can't be recreated in the warrior-priest umbrella--sure... Not a personal fan of zealotry, though, so I'll probably never play the paladin.

Creative Lead (Lead Writer) of Mask of the Betrayer. Check my other George Ziets thread! http://forums.obsidi...e-stretch-goal/ Lead on Mask of the Betrayer and Dungeon Siege 3. Edit: Since someone bumped the old thread, I'm going to merge. Well, okay... I didn't play NWN:MotB (didn't enjoy NWN1 all that much). I don't know how that compares to Avellone's writing, for example. And I hope this will have nothing to do with romances.

I don't know who he is. What? ....What're you.... ow ow OW! Stoppit! Ow!

This cuts both ways. If you LIKE reloading, then check all the options under the three difficulty modes except Iron-whatever and be done with it. The few players on this forum have no real business telling Obsidian how to decide balancing the default "normal" mode for the majority of players, whoever we/they are, because there are too many extremes trying to edge in and Obsidian has a much better handle on "difficulty" at a high level we cannot see.

Wasn't that captured by the little icons on the character portraits? Granted, the meaning of those wasn't always clear in the BG series. I think they did a better job of that in NWN2. Maybe they need a highlight graphic when a new negative effect gets added to a character? Yeah that's what I mean. I can't tell what the heck those little icons mean...I want a combat log to yell at me: "HEY MAN YOUR FREAKING POISONED!!!!!!! CURE THAT NOW!!!!!" instead of going: "pssst, hey, hey man theres something weird going on" I want it to say: "THAT DUDES CASTING A BIG ASS FIRE SPELL MAN BE READY!!!!!" Not some cryptic animation then BOOM your party is dead. Part of that is really to learn the animations, removing the cryptic part. e.g. Poison, the character twitches like he was hit, once every second or two. Casting a fireball, if you have a mage, there's an incantation you can recognize--the combat log should not tell you beforehand what the enemy is casting. That is just lame. Portrait state icons can definitely be improved somehow.

Oh, wait, but the companion interaction was superior in PS:T compared to BG... :sweat:

Additional topic http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/59968-scrolling-text-log-for-dialog-and-combat/ I found BG2 combat easy enough to follow by the visuals (oh, he's stuck in a web), but I think the poison/curse/etc. icons on the actual portraits were very small and hard to see, especially with all the buff icons alongside them. The combat log, like in the other thread (there was probably at least one other but I can't find it at the moment), could very well share the main chat window like in the old IE games, but I think it would be easier to track if separated out in a tab while dialogic/narrative text is in another tab. Additionally, the dialogic log should be kept somewhere in a journal-like manner for players to review for quests or something.

I actually thought that was pretty clear from the outset, but it's good to see you guys jumping in to clear up the misconceptions. I suppose the misconceptions arising make sense due to the nature of all the updates up to now, but it's important to note who's involved and the dangers of talking too much about that deep reactive narrative. I think examples of reactive content would be nice, but only in the generic sense. Yay for dev involvement.

(1) It can learn that a cooldown (magic) system CAN dilute magic, if implemented as the primary control or in a vacuum. In one game I play, I have a particular skill on a one-hour cooldown. A one-hour cooldown in practice is significantly different than a 7-second cooldown--times can be easily adjusted with contingencies as well. (2) It can learn that engaging in dialogue is always a good thing, like PS:T, though PS:T wasn't limited to a camp mechanic to do so (I'd rather have more freedom that way, but maybe companions can say "Uh, let's talk somewhere else more private"). Most importantly, it can learn that using a scoring system for such party interactions really sucks and turn the whole experience into a point arcade for stupid players. (So much hate for that.) (3) Nah, I disagree with that. The 6 prologues took up too much individual content space due to linearity, but at the same time had too little effect in the main body of the game. The origins were fine in DA:O, but I'd rather if such an implementation appear in PE, it would be one quarter the length each and with far more effect in the actual game body. (4) It can learn that a good, long game requires believable and engaging plot, overall narrative, and antagonists to be driving, period. (5) It can learn that there are two ways to address auto-attack, either keep it for physical classes and add a caster auto-attack or remove the warrior auto-attack to match caster limits. (6) Eh, yeah...

Here we go. From the KS Feargus Q&A sessions, courtesy of Ink Blot: The first TotSC reference fills me with glee, and I appreciate the latter comment that keeps ToB separate--though I don't know anything about Old World Blues. TotSC!

Given that Obsidian cited all three IE games as content-specific progenitors, I don't think we have anything to worry about the game being balanced across three fronts (dialogic and narrative, combat, exploration). There was another "worry" thread, particularly about how all the updates and stuff are about mechanics. Here's my response:

Obsidian did say that they wouldn't award for "body count," which implies they won't award for only kills and/or the main bulk of xp is coming from quests, or something. I'm curious how they're going to balance things out between level/xp/questing, but I'm sure Obsidian will look for something fair---they have a lot of experience by now.

No, that's a legitimate concern--I think stat-based dialogic content, while it does make sense, needs to be tempered so the bulk of said content isn't locked behind only 1-2 stats. In PS:T, a true complete playthrough (because combat really takes the back seat) requires you to play a mage. I'd say that and the abrupt ending with no party member postscripts are the main weaknesses of PS:T. This is also why, I suspect, most people replay Baldur's Gate rather than PS:T... P.S.: I highly, highly recommend the use of paragraph demarcation.

For comparison, I'd much prefer a Tales of the Sword Coast expansion (for BG1) than Throne of Bhaal (for BG2)--which was not intended to be an expansion but rather BG3. I do not think a ToB-style expansion of the main storyline would be appropriate at all; that should be saved for a proper sequel. For a TotSC-style expansion, the main difference I would like to see are different responses by NPCs due to the "ending"--however, this must be flexible, of course, because in subsequent playthroughs of BG1, I played TotSC before finishing the main BG1 storyline. P.S.: Meh, don't like the poll options one bit.

And this is where it went wrong for me. I bumped up to $140 for the beta key, but as soon as Obs split it out for that cheap, I dropped to $58 without the beta key (figured they'd get a ton of testers by then). Now if an exclusive is split off at a higher value, like $100 for the book or something, that might work out, I dunno. It's a risk to play with existing tiers is all. Since Obs is being all schizophrenic about the rewards, I'm waiting until the last day to see where everything is. p.s.: KS isn't a preorder storefront, but in actual practice, that's what people are expecting, for better or worse...

This would be extremely ill-advised. By lowering major rewards down tiers (they already lowered the $500 hardcover to $250), Obsidian is encouraging those high backers to drop their pledges for a cheaper alternative. It's risky and can also create a sense of disappointment that Obsidian is changing, even reneging the relative value of higher to tiers after people already backed for specific rewards. Double-edged sword. Any further changes to the tiers should be pure additions of new things. p.s. There is exclusivity everywhere in life. This is a privilege, not a right.

Oh, I know. I'm curious what kind of spells are popular--area effect, damage, defense, arcane or divine, utility spells, etc. So far arcane has the lead and most are damage spells, which isn't surprising. I think I listed the only druid spell too. I hope PE has some interesting utility spells, and divine spells don't seem popular outside ho-hum necessity. (I did really love Fall-from-Grace's high level Call Lightning, though.)

OMFG. I thought this was going to be one of those facepalming "There shouldn't be international language translation because I'm not gonna use it," but this is actually worse. OP: "I don't want PE to get to $2.6m stretch because that means Obsidian will remove all the original party companions they had planned." WTF? HOW.... WH....... I MEAN........ HOW DOES A REMOTELY SANE PERSON EVEN COME UP WITH THAT? :blink:

You know what's sad, I could SEE the spell icon symbol thingie in my head before remembering the name (which is just Lower Resistance, unless you mean lower saving throws--Greater Malison).

Just curious. It could be something rather mundane, or something less popular. If you were limited to only ONE spell out of all those available in an Infinity Engine game during your gameplay, what would it be? (Comment: Some spells and combos were definitely unbalanced and lent themselves to cheese, even sometimes exploits; that's not necessarily what I'm looking for, though I suppose knowing about exploits could be useful for the devs, maybe.) Infinity Engine games: Baldur's Gate (1998) Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast (1999) Planescape: Torment (1999) Icewind Dale (2000) Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter (2001) Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter: Trials of the Luremaster (2001) Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn (2000) Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal (2001) Icewind Dale II (2002) Mine would be from BG2: Summon Insects (druid), since it's level 3 and can lock down multiple casters and invisible targets in a single cast.

Oh yes. And the publisher layer on top (marketing and distribution) vastly bloat a game budget, so there's no direct correlation--that's something OP has to keep in mind. (The links I posted are mostly for more recent games/data.)

Game budgets are typically hush-hush, usually protected by nondisclosure agreements. There is some discussion, though: http://www.rpgwatch....80&postcount=33 http://www.rpgwatch....t?newsbit=19389 http://www.1up.com/n...dgets-secretive http://www.cinemable...gets-39474.html http://www.develop-o...-as-high-as-28m http://digitalbattle...e-budgets-ever/ http://www.computera...ant-innovation/