Ieo

Yeah, considering how much I want a mega dungeon along the same lines as Durlag's Tower, "random" really cannot work there--unless we're talking about the trap level that required a good thief. World random? Uh. I'd rather have pathing enemies instead.

This poll confuses me. "What should workload (Kickstarter funds) be spent on?" --> The game content itself, obviously?

(snip) Obviously, it is entirely possible that Oblivion has a third choice that makes the points above moot, but... "Trust Oblivion" isn't a good enough argument for me, and I really can't see a way for them to "show their work" to convince me that they have found a third way. To be honest, I don't see why the general idea (which I personally like) couldn't be easily scaled by the three more difficult settings--numbers are more easliy scaled than binary, that's for sure. Then someone might say that 'normal' play shouldn't be diluted to 'require' a more difficult setting--if the very first difficulty setting can significantly increase the cooldowns and such or even remove them entirely, then at least the other two in combination should provide enough challenge for the really hardcore--and I seem to remember an Obsidian comment about allowing players to pick and choose among the difficult modes. Not sure. I think, at worst, you had a group of people who weren't for or against it, but indifferent. Maybe some who'd prefer it to Vancian, but that doesn't equate to liking it. For example, I don't want Vancian, I wouldn't mind cool downs depending on how they are implemented. But if it were Vancian I'd still play and enjoy the game despite it, like many years of AD&D games, SSI Gold Box games and IE games. I'm in the indifferent group, though with the incredibly loud off-topic complaining that derailed my cooldown thread, I began to want Obsidian to implement cooldowns just for that. () I just adapt to whatever magic system is in place for a CRPG. Some things are truly awkward, though--PS:T cut-scenes for the high-level spells? Oof.

Overpowered, I'd rather not see that in PE... as much as I loved them in BG and metagamed to get one ASAP... I'd rather have a pack critter hold all the major gear like armour sets than allow the party members themselves carry that into battle. I mean, armour sets are heavy and bulky. A couple weapons would make sense to carry on-person, but carrying three 2-handed swords would be really weird. Also---no mounts. Really no mounts. Totally unnecessary given the intended map travel that would really add only a cosmetic sprite element that would have to be linked to combat mechanics (what happens if you're attacked while mounted, etc.)--just too much work for so little gain, unless "travel" is a main theme. At least the addition of a pack animal itself, and I'd love it alongside a campsite, would have true utility (and "inventory" is definitely a main theme in a typical CRPG).

Because naming the game Dragon Age: Origins doesn't imply the overarching importance of that first half hour in any way.... It's not that they don't count for anything. They count for the first half hour, maybe fifteen minutes in between, and the last ten minutes. Because DA:O had no exploration whatsoever, it lacked BG's replay value on that alone--this means that DA:O's replay value lay only in the origins and in-game choices. The origins were rather minimal in the overall game bulk, though, being mostly just intros. I'd say it's closer to a wash. BG had far more quests, many with different consequences, while DA:O had a lot fewer quests but some consequences noteworthy enough to show in postscript. It's hard to directly compare without actually going through and hammering out numbers and category. But I suspect DA:O would just inflate things using their "more word count than Planescape Torment!" lie. I'll agree there.

Heh. I can have all the expectations I want, but it's Obsidian's game. They'll do what they wish, and I hope I'll enjoy it. As for what stopped me in PS:T, I think I got too far in the story without leveling up my characters enough. When I finally left Sigil, I was at a place - it's been too long, I'm not sure where it was - where everything was beating the tar out of me on a regular basis. Or maybe I just wasn't very good at the game. It's still sitting on my shelf, I should reread some stuff a friend sent me about how to play it on widescreen and give it another go. I recommend it, but of course my bias is obvious. There are quite a few technical guides online as well in terms of picking out stats and where to get xp, though the latter may be hard to avoid spoilers... GOG.com also has a good mod guide for PS:T (I linked it earlier in this thread somewhere).

Fair enough. People like what they like. But... I didn't play DA2, so I can't comment on that. But I hate DA:O precisely because it failed in paying homage... Fail so miserably because it was so different. Honestly, Bioware should never have mentioned Baldur's Gate in the marketing. They were hardly the same in so many respects and the franchise thus earned enemies that way. (I'm sure others have commented on that already.) It's satisfying to me in the MMO way (I do like LoS because it's realistic), but there's nothing special about the particular points you mention--big numbers? Crit hits and "chunking" an entire enemy into giblets in BG. Positioning? BG already had that, etc. DA:O combat was crap in the overall sense: Boring as hell darkspawn enemies, all the same, only three combat types, appearing for no good reason like a monster under the bed--quantity instead of quality. Not enough skills/spells, which improved by tier (not bad in itself), but still not much variety for full-on BG-style tactical play. etc. Okay, WTF, did you not play Planescape: Torment? Standard my arse.... *cough* What DA:O excelled in was the cinematic talking head full-VO department, which certainly gives the illusion of more "life" to the party NPC and is enough to trick most players--but it was very one-sided. How? Because you as the PC had fairly bland and superficial dialogues while the party NPC had personality and the "show." Seriously, DA:O had nothing on PS:T in this department, and it annoyed me so very much that DA:O marketing included some blurb claiming it had a higher word count (totally misleading because half of DA:O's textual content was stuck in the codex, not dialogic). DA:O was a different genre. It was a linear action RPG, and did not even come close to BG's greatness in terms of massive exploration and storyline--the BG antagonists were way more interesting and believable. I still to this day do not understand DA:O's main antagonist's motivations; it's unbelievable. It's not what Project Eternity intends to be. Let Obsidian ignore it entirely. Edit: The world quest-related postscripts at the end of DA:O were nice (e.g. that Dwarf girl quest) and probably the only thing I really liked overall, but it ended up being so buggy for me that it didn't even matter. Also, about the origins themselves... they didn't affect middle play as much as I hoped, so really most of the "innovative" content in DA:O happened in the first half hour of the game and last ten minutes.

If there's post-ship expansion on the dungeon, I really hope would fit well with the narrative--but an overarching narrative like WK is boring to me compared to the more granular narrative of DT, and expanding DT would not have made sense. Which means I'd rather not have dungeon expansion if it'll be closer to DT than WK, and I want a DT... It's the only purpose for MMO dungeons, that's for sure. But in an SP game especially, for me, I really want a good story hook to go through as well, and a mystery to unravel inside. (Please, no cults, those are done to death...)

So the vanity pet (only one vanity pet will be created, I guess?). I still don't want a dog.... But I wouldn't be averse to a Fizzgig. Maybe a LIm-Lim (lol). Or a tribble. Of course, the vanity pet can't be useful in combat or that would unbalance things for backers above $50, unless it only does 1 pt of damage per hit and misses half the time. Hamster, I certainly wouldn't mind--or some similar rodent since PE is a different kind of world. I suspect many people would want to see it visible as a sprite, though. We have no idea about the beastiary for PE yet, though, so I'm still holding out hope for something a little more exotic but cute.

Well, I really like it. And my random idea in my original cooldown thread turned out to be half-right, too, which makes me feel good, heh. Looking forward to see the system in action, devs. Now to figure out how soul matters to all of that. I'd like to see AI discussed in another Q&A later on myself, like how scriptable it can be from the user side, stuff like that. Though for really full control, we wouldn't be using much of the party AI at all. (I'm more interested in enemy AI.) As for thinking about all that stuff in real-time, it works in MMOs.

I just wanted to say..... HOW DARE YOU POST AN UPDATE WHILE I WAS ASLEEP. AND IT'S ONLY 6:40am OVER HERE ON A SATURDAY MORNING. I AM MOST DISPLEASED. *goes to read, grumpily*

I visited a Renaissance festival last month. I saw, in costume---all manner of stuff from classic Middle Age armoured knights and brigands to more Renaissance clothing to a barbarian fellow to pirates to.... furries and an Ent. I can do without the furries, though I'm not so averse to some kind of creature race in PE. Basically, given the genre, I'm comfortable with using "Middle Ages" as a very basic framework upon which to hang all the fantasy stuff. However, PE is also a mature game--every single Age on our world is rife with the same issues, still overflowing with misogyny, brutality, religious intolerance, disease, famine and all the other sordid unpleasantries--just no longer in most of Europe. That means I expect PE to touch upon at least some of those themes as well.

Yes. Well, the problem I believe is that even an academic informational discussion could possibly turn into a firestarter too. Faith is kind of like "Dragon Age: Origins" or "Baldur's Gate". Some prefer to pray in their way, some in another way. If I would say I prefer Dragon Age: Origins over Baldur's Gate I'm sure... something... would happen? I guess.. it's a good example (and demonstration?).....? *waits for it* Heh. Hm, the Chantry. I don't even remember it very well--I was pretty 'meh' about DA:O so I tried to scrub it from my brain. Rather, I'm quite interested to see exactly how "soul," like a spiritual power bladder (lol), interacts with the mechanics alongside major narrative---not interested in the latter because that's all spoilery stuff.

Eeeeh, want to discuss, feel I shouldn't discuss, I'll just say "Not interested in discussing Religion"... In some weird way I want to ask Obsidian Forums (Moderators/Developers w/e) for permission to talk about Religion xD can I? (I'm non-religious so don't expect me being a Missionary of any sort... the topic of real life Religion could benefit thoughts on Souls in the game). Such discussions tread a very fine line to breaking forum rules: Discrimination: Obsidian has a zero-tolerance policy with regard to racial, ethnic, gender, religious, disablement, and/or sexually discriminating remarks. It's my recommendation that we try to steer clear of that when possible. Edit: Well, academic informational discussion should be fine but only in third person--the way Krezack framed his opinion would basically be the firestarter. P.S.: I don't see why you can't exercise suspension of disbelief for this as you would for a magic system.

I'm atheist too, but I've studied some world religion and have many friends across different ones so my view is a bit different. I personally treat "soul" as a spiritually secular thing--there are plenty of NON-religions (one can view that as "spiritualities" or philosophies) that adopt the concept of a soul, though the behavior and nature of 'soul' may differ among them. For example, Buddhism is a nontheist philosophy "religion," but it certainly revolves around a concept of soul. This is in opposition to actual gods in the world and in PE's world. I see "soul" and godly religion as separate things, and gods certainly I treat as fantasy both here and in-game. Did you feel offended that PE would have gods at all? (If yes, you probably shouldn't back this... Just sayin'.)

Oh the idiotic "adventurer's academy" was the absolute worst!! I mean the single-player in NWN was pretty awful in general, but that section made my eyes bleed. That has me thinking a bit. I'm having trouble distinctly remembering an introductory sequence in an RPG that I really liked off the top of my head? I guess New Vegas was pretty good. Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't too bad, Mask of the Betrayer OK ... nothing else really stands out. Anybody out there have any that they really, really enjoyed? Well, I happened to like Candlekeep. The NPCs were written with distinct personalities and the PC dialogue options--though they didn't actually affect anything in the game at that point--had personality too. I remember that senile old lady mage(?), the cow quest, and the cranky Dwarf who sent you in to smack rats (lol)... This could be a measure of nostalgia, though! I don't even remember NWN's starting area. I must've repressed it.

There was a RipTen interview too: Interesting. Soul really touches on, well, everything substantive in the narrative and all combat mechanics, looks like.

That's what I thought I remembered... Oh, I'll get a good review again soon enough.

Nooo, have high expectations! The PE companions must be between Baldur's Gate and PS:T companions, if we can't have the latter. *severe nod* May I ask, what stopped you from going further in PS:T? UI, the cant, or something else? (Knowing barriers into a game with the exception of pure taste is interesting..)

Noted and changed before the edit window closed. Edit: Uhhh..... spoilery? I dunno, I kinda expect everyone to have played BG1, but that's a dangerous assumption... There's something that occurred to me about the Candlekeep implementation, though, and why I feel uneasy about skipping it--because of BG1's ending chapter. Going through that the first time allows the player to create, however small, memorable linkages with NPC personalities which makes the BG1 ending chapter more meaningful, IMO. Candlekeep really is on a different level than Irenicus' dungeon.

Oh, I didn't know there's a mod for "chateau de Candlekeep" too. It's been a long enough time that I wouldn't mind going through it again at this point, but that's good to know. That sounds better and more, uh, immersive than the "Chateau d'Irenicus" mod, which uses a bunch of planar mumbo jumbo and porting--I'm not sure the modders could have done much better with the linear dungeon starter area, though.

Should gold have weight? Monetary system Money, what is it worth and how to get it The weight of riches! Lots of opining!

In-game tutorial thread. I thought it was easy to skip most of Candlekeep to get out into the world? But it's been a long while since I've played BG1. BG2's starter area (dungeon) was far more annoying after the first few times. My suggestion somewhere was a small, open racial training camp on the border of whatever racial "starting area" (omg, not DA:O's thing) with minimal quests intended to allow players to practice class skills and get used to the UI. Immersive but very optional. There would be only one quest to "send" the character out to whatever major plot starter event Obsidian had in mind.

Honestly, I think the extreme flexibility within the parent class descriptions of Update 15 is intended precisely to counter multiclassing completely. Adding multi-/dual-classing adds a layer of complexity concerning balance, I imagine, thus allowing substantial flexibility within specified limits of a main class description would probably be easier to implement. Not that I'm against multiclassing--I usually do it--but the D&D classes you could combine in BG, for example, were far stricter in actual practice (limitations) than the classes described in U15. I'm thinking that adding multiclass to very flexible classes like this would be too much work for Obsidian... As for stats, I'm good with what Obsidian decides. /shrug

Hi Justin I do appreciate you coming in here to answer particular concerns with your knowledge; rare accessibility on the creation side of things, much thanks. I think small live ensembles would be a great compromise--string quartets, whatever, soloist parts--music is significant in setting/amplifying mood and immersion, IMO. Even electric instruments don't sound right to me compared to acoustic, but that could just be me. (Just please ensure everyone is in-tune. ) If something like this can be added to a stretch in combination with something else, that'd be fantastic--I suspect people without musical training or considerable instrument appreciation would have no idea how this matters, though.