Ieo

I think this depends ENTIRELY on the engine they chose, and licensing an existing engine is far faster and easier than creating one from scratch (which is what they did with Infinity Engine, hence they were able to release tools on their own), and a licensed product may not allow or have player-level mod tools...

This doesn't work for a meaningful poll. It's no different than asking for a beta key at $100... someone will ask for $65... someone believes only $40 is reasonable... someone else thinks $250 is the sweet spot for that. etc. "It's in the spirit of PE KS to make everything as cheap as possible." Someone may far prefer the T-shirt and whatever over the book and hate this idea. Whatever Obsidian decided for the tiers means what they believe is reasonable value for the cost and effort to produce the swag. Maybe the book will be available separately later; maybe it'll find its way onto eBay. P.S.: You may be able to trade all of that for the book, if you can find someone reputable here/online for that.

"My opinion is factually right, everyone else is wrong. So there!" I noticed you never mentioned any of the three Infinity Engine games that Obsidian explicitly mention for homage, so you probably never played them. In that case: Honey, you backed the wrong thing. This isn't for you. Don't worry, there's still time to cancel your pledge. Hurry!

You mention only BG2 (and BG1). Have you played PS:T? It is night and day.

I second this. Highly. A subforum and then maybe ONE locked sticky thread on the main discussion page pointing to the official subsection to shepherd people to the right place.

I really like the souls idea and am looking forward to see how that fits with the mechanics--classes. Hm. I'll remain neutral on the guns; I'm sure Obsidian will balance them in a fantasy game appropriately. (Oh hello, armoured arcane mages. Interesting.) Thanks!

Players should have no say in this. It's back-end. Return on investment. Obsidian should and will pick the engine that is flexible enough to handle the combination of mechanics and textual content they want to do for the exact purpose of the Kickstarter: Single-player old-school RPG 'paying homage to the big three IE games'. Player toolsets, multiplayer, whatever--all of that is gravy.

I understand your intentions, but on an internet gaming forum, these sorts of topics unfortunately degenerate very quickly without constant moderating. It's the nature of the medium.

Planescape: Torment had 7 joinable NPCs of tremendous depth (and non-party NPCs with great personality). Since I'm praying with all my tiny geeky might that PE will have that kind of content, 7 total with the Kickstarter stretch goals would be fine with me.

I find your thread to be irrelevant. If Obsidian handled the topic well back in the day, today should be no different.

We don't need 2 gay threads on the front page. You can't just keep creating threads on the same subject. | v Otherwise.... Given the direction everyone expects this to go along with help from trolls-- In before the lock.

You mean the retail disc should be a steam key? Why? Since that tier also includes a digital version, wouldn't it be better if the people who want steam use the digital version for their steam key? Retail versions of steam games are such hollow products. They're not the media they're printed on, it's a key you register on an online account with a useless disc attached. I'm curious how you managed to get "retail discs should have Steam" from my post. (Really?) My post is to people who don't want any DRM and are worried about the box having DRM; I'm saying there's a very easy way around that so it doesn't matter if the disc has DRM or not--get GoG, burn to disc, still DRM-free. On the other hand, if you intended to give the disc or the digital download away to someone else, I can see how that would still be a problem.

Also, and I'm sure it's been mentioned somewhere in this thread already, but I thought I'd reiterate that transgender is different from LGB in the LGBT grouping. It is possible to be transgender and straight, transgender and gay/lesbian, etc. The identity and sexuality are in fact different things. As Longknife said earlier, though, transgender should be easily addressed if you can choose your identified sex and your orientation (if there are romances). OP seems to feel that's not enough, hence my initial post suggesting there is a deeper personal issue at work that's inapplicable to the game development at hand. Stuff like this... this is why I chose "no" to the romance polls; I'm very much all or nothing--if it can't be done inclusively and very well, then don't even bother going halfway. There are too many variables involved with the variable races and cultures and political biases. Half-assed implementations are annoying and the resources better used elsewhere in content that's accessible to everyone.

It's a matter of 'identity', not libido. Although those things naturally occur together most of the time, I think. I believe many aspects of the above you listed can be incorporated well in a fictional setting. But getting down to the NPC interactions becomes very granular and complex if we're after a sort of realism, perhaps well beyond what is feasible in the programming (ROI). That is up to Obsidian. For example, considering LGBT, LGB people easily fit in and their proclivities are private--it would only come up in highly private situations limited to a few NPCs at most. But transgender is different. If someone asked to be represented as 'publicly' transgender (obvious or suspicious to observers), then that immediately throws a wrench in NPC interaction design, unless the world itself is designed to not care--and then some may still complain that there should be a reaction. If there is realistic representation there, then that would mean awkwardness and sometimes outright hostility; I can't imagine why anyone would want this in a game they're role-playing.

(1) Misrepresented or underrepresented--given how LGBT was treated in the Fallout series, I think we have less to worry about with Obsidian in terms of the misrepresented. Underrepresented is another thing entirely. (2) This statement seems to contradict the statement prior to it: You have a difficult time 'being yourself' as your avatar. But you prefer RPGs precisely because you can be something else. I have trouble understanding this, and if I'm not misinterpreting what you actually wrote, then I suggest you think carefully about this. (3) Which community are you talking about---the larger society or a niche gaming community? Because that's what this is--a niche gaming community ('very' niche, given that this can't even be funded except by Kickstarter). You start your post by saying you have a problem connecting to your avatar, never mind the contradiction in #2, but this does not automatically translate to connecting to the gaming community and especially not society at large: Plenty of gamers play and 'connect' (or 'own') to avatars that are very different from themselves, playing female or male or odd races. And then-- (4) I honestly do not understand this (besides conflicting with #2). You are M2F transgender. You identify as female. Why exactly is it hard to play an avatar representing what you actually believe and want yourself to be? It seems to me that you want to bring your personal discomforts into the game and not the actual identity/preference (latter for LGB). "Who" are you? Who is anyone? I would like to think the measure of a human being is in the choices she makes and not merely appearance, or what she wants to be, or what she believes she is. Then that becomes, "what" are you? Side comments: I spotted a post somewhere about cross-dressing. Transgender is not the same thing as cross-dressing, though the two are often conflated and are, for all intents and purposes, impossible to distinguish from the public point of view. Allowing certain armours/outfits to be very gender neutral would be great, though. Obsidian is still looking into avatar creation itself, so it may be possible to choose a body build that is more on the ambiguous side; also, considering the 'odd' races, I'm sure Obsidian will be creative about it--what if there's a race with three sexes?

Per the discussion about disc DRM now that we know digital will include a DRM-free option, all the box tiers include a digital download, so I don't see why you can't just download the GoG DRM-free version and burn to disc as your backup, and look at the box tiers really for the bonus swag.

This is a basic issue of accessibility, same with localisation. Increased accessibility automatically opens markets and future sales, which is a good for the developer and for the consumers who want access; there are only two risks with accessibility--return on investment and meeting federal mandates. The latter doesn't apply here, and the former is implicitly addressed by the devs themselves in stretch goals, meaning they should have already done the math to show additional OS support is feasible and will not require any concessions in slated single-player content. So the OP is moot, from my POV.

I agree that having a target deadline helps with scheduling and overall project management, but it would be a good idea to consider particularly with the qualifier that the Kickstarter funds reach a certain level (and thus expectation of more content). At the moment and with the last interviews, the current funds are supposed to be fine for what they have on the table. If Obsidian may need more time--larger team with more complex project management, for example--at a certain target level, the possibility of an extended deadline should be explicit on that stretch goal tier.

Sure, pirates...... tweaked pirates that are nothing like our stereotypical eyepatch leg-peg ARRRR pirates. Maybe they're elves. Or fairies.

Yeah, in before the lock.... I already added an idea somewhere near the beginning of this thread, but I just checked this out again and shouldn't have been surprised that it's since degenerated since the other one was locked.

It's a risk either way---I know a number of us were banking on DA:O to address the itch for Baldur's Gate, but that didn't happen. It was simply too different, too "new." This is why "spiritual successor" is a phrase that generally just pisses me off, but I'm still holding out hope... There must be different elements, yes. There must be "improvements" to certain things, yes. But where the good balance is, no one has really figured it out yet because no current games, including DA:O that first name-dropped, has actually successfully addressed it, IMO. ...Okay, I just remembered there's supposed to be a game coming out very soon or already that's supposed to be a classical isometric deal, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was...

I did understand that. It doesn't matter how many quite different games they throw into the marketing mix. I judge a game only by the arguments that are given towards a project. Other games are only relevant, if they are directly connected to the new title, what isn't the case. In that case it was the reputation of the developers and the market situation for that kind of games that gave me confidence, not the fact they mentioned several games they were involved in the past. To be honest, if it wouldn't be Obsidian, I don't know if I had watched the video at all. Those two statements seem to negate each other? (Assuming the watch video part implies sticking with the KS.) Personally, I can never get fully behind a developer... or a band... or an author... or Apple ( ) because absolute fandom, to me, creates a subculture lacking accountability. There are still people who believe Bioware can do no wrong (but perhaps "wrong" is the incorrect word--rather their target audience has changed substantially). Reputation is a double-edged sword; faith is always best when tempered. I do appreciate reputation, of course, but to boot, I have never played an Obsidian game, either. PS:T (Black Isle) Baldur's Gate complete (Bioware) IWD 1 (Black Isle) NWN 1 (Bioware) KotOR 1 (Bioware) ME 1 & 2 (Bioware) DA:O (Bioware) Every single one that I chose to play were based on the game's own hooks or friends' recommendations, and I judged them purely on my personal enjoyment rather than anything else because I don't pay attention to developers or band names or whatnot. So I'm kind of coming from the outside and relying on the business proposal itself. Thus it didn't even occur to me to add Obsidian to the poll.

The question wasn't "which game should represent PE" but "what is YOUR favorite that captured your attention when PE was announced." The difference is subtle, underlined below: Sorry, I considered making it like that (and it's a little late to change it, I think), but typically people will have a real favorite and thus carry associated bias in terms of expectations and hopes for game development--an underlying and unspoken psychology is also that it's possible Obsidian won't be able to deliver the perfect trifecta of mechanics/breadth/depth, so taking into account one's bias, in what direction would you prefer the game to lean? Some people have said that they liked ALL OF THEM, but that wasn't really answering the question and is more saying they love Obsidian, which is fine. The other/multi thing is taking into account that some people will also have a tie as to their absolute favorite in relation to supporting PE. And it's not like this is a pure numerical poll; discussion is of course encouraged. There are Obsidian fanboys/fangirls, undoubtedly, but I find it very hard to believe that someone will love all the listed games and others equally (I'm not a fanboy/fangirl type so I can't empathise). Edit: But to say you were drawn in by the studio's development attitudes instead of any specific game is a great answer, of course.

What's the old-fashioned way? I will counter that raffles, lotteries, competitions, and other internal networking methods have NOTHING to do with beta testing abilities either, and yet those methods are certainly employed. None of that has to do with fairness. And pricing is completely subjective; if they put it at $65, a bunch of people would whine that is too high too. In fact, if we go by your logic, beta testers must have background in SDLC and prove it by resume; I guess I'm more qualified than most since I have QA/UAT experience. If anything the $ tier limitation for beta does three things for Obsidian--it's the easiest method, encourages more monetary investment which will go into world creation, and limits the participants to a "manageable" number. Inviting 40k potential beta testers is ridiculous. In terms if limitation, reasoning is already put forth in the thread. Resources, NDA, etc. At later stages? Yeah, it could work with a public beta release to look for major incompatibilities.

I keep misreading the title and thinking "Is EA a choice?" The problem I have with the narrative requirement is that there's still a possibility for stupidly arbitrary cheese--like the main antagonist saying "I'm going to kill someone in your party just to prove how powerful I am!" NOt that Obsidian would do that. I did think BGII:ToB's pocket plane random choice in relation to the good/evil path was an interesting implementation, though. And in BGII, I did kill off Anomen pretty quick. Given the expected subrace/cultural range in PE, I fully expect NPCs to have different and possibly opposing backgrounds. Nifty.