Nivenus

I'm okay with dragons. I'm also okay if they leave them out (though I imagine many people would miss them). Like the OP though, I think that if they are included they should be important and consequential, not just random encounters. Whether they talk or not, are intelligent or not, is something I'm open to, so long as they're not just another monster.

I prefer expansion packs myself though I tolerate DLC well enough. X-packs just feel more consequential to me - like they're an actual story in of themselves rather than just a side quest in the main story. In any case, though, it may be a bit early to be thinking about details like this. Let Obsidian focus on the main game for now and worry about how they'd like to expand it later.

I'd support this goal, although I don't know how realistic it is. Presumably they'd have to get permission from the license holders of the engine, whoever and whatever that is.

I'd be fine with them as well as they were well-written and weren't stereotypical "yaar, maties" pirates. But it's worth noting that the map of the game they've shown so far doesn't look particularly well-suited to pirating. There's only a few islands and most of the named locations are inland. So if I had to hazard a guess... no pirates or very few.

It requires you, however, to activate the game before playing and having Steam running whenever you're playing. Which is what is meant with DRM. When Steam goes bankrupt or offline, you cannot install and play any game. Valve's said (repeatedly) that they'll release the games from the client if they go under. That's a lie/ internet myth. They never, EVER officially stated such a thing. Hmm. I haven't been able to find a quote either, so you may be right. But in any case, there's always "offline mode," which you can more or less run in perpetuum for single player game

What I find interesting is that the general feeling over here (not too traditional, devs!) is completely the opposite of the firearms thread (please be more traditional, devs!). I think you can still do interesting things with elves and dwarves. Elves needn't be the haughty superior race or the poor, victimized race. They can be both (multiple elven cultures) or something else entirely (technologically advanced race, naval empire, etc.). The same goes for dwarves. I would like to see what Obsidian's planning for their "unusual" races though.

Completely correct. The truth is that magic itself - especially as it is usually rendered in fantasy RPGs (reliable, easy to cast, and high power) - would have as significant an impact (or more!) on society as technologies like guns. If a wizard can enchant a sword with flames, there's no reason to imagine he couldn't similarly create magical power plants to generate modern electricity. If (highly-trained) priests could reliably resurrect the dead, there's no telling how much this could change society. The fact of the matter is that few works of fantasy actually follow through on the logic

This is kind of subjective, but I have a particular distaste this point of view. I think it's very erroneous (and potentially harmful) to look on scientific advancement as somehow "bad" and the medieval world as somehow "good." Don't get me wrong, I love swords and knights as much as the next guy and medieval history is one of my (many) academic interests. But I generally prefer fantasy that doesn't sugarcoat the old days with the idea that they were somehow better than our modern world, what with its "unromantic" advances like germ theory, democracy, or electricity. Because honestly... th

This is kind of subjective, but I have a particular distaste this point of view. I think it's very erroneous (and potentially harmful) to look on scientific advancement as somehow "bad" and the medieval world as somehow "good." Don't get me wrong, I love swords and knights as much as the next guy and medieval history is one of my (many) academic interests. But I generally prefer fantasy that doesn't sugarcoat the old days with the idea that they were somehow better than our modern world, what with its "unromantic" advances like germ theory, democracy, or electricity. Because honestly... th

While it seems fairly obvious to me that they're not going to Steampunk route, I must ask you; What?! I can think of exactly one Steampunk RPG, which had a great story and atmosphere, but was also one of the mechanically weakest games I've played, to not speak of the mass amount of bugs - and that's Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. I can think of at least 20 - and I can say that without even needing to think about it - generic fantasy games, set in generic fantasy settings, give or take a handful of unique aspects. How can you possibly think that Steampunk is "way played out"?

It requires you, however, to activate the game before playing and having Steam running whenever you're playing. Which is what is meant with DRM. When Steam goes bankrupt or offline, you cannot install and play any game. Valve's said (repeatedly) that they'll release the games from the client if they go under. Which doesn't seem terribly likely at the moment.

I know the rest of your post goes on to more or less say something entirely different, but this stuck out to me. Because, as I've already pointed out, that's not really true. Even barring the fact that we still use body armor (though it's made of ceramics and kevlar instead of steel), metallic body armor didn't disappear with guns. Plate armor, in fact, only really came into popular use after the invention of guns. So no, guns didn't make armor immediately obsolete - they simply changed the design of armor.

Eh, as a low-contribution donator (due in large part to my limited pocketbook), I'm okay with not getting beta access. It would be nice, sure, but there are management issues to consider and at this point the number of testers is already pretty high. Really, I don't need a reward to contribute. I'm just happy to put some money - any money - forward to contribute towards seeing Obsidian succeed.

It was definitely a bad deal they offered and it would been a shame if it had gone forward... But what developer in their right mind would accept the deal? I don't see any potential advantage, since they'd be raising all of the money anyway. So I'm not convinced this will be a problem in the future.

It depends how structured NPC interaction is generally in the game. If you can kill any NPC in the game at any time, then I don't expect companions to be immune. If, on the other hand, it's more like the Dragon Age, Mass Effect, or Neverwinter Nights games where attacking NPCs is limited specifically to predetermined combat scenarios or random encounters, than I figure companions should be immune except for when natural fissures emerge in the party (essentially, story or relationship-related reasons).

See, I actually believe the opposite. I think those who are steadfastly opposed to romances in video games are likely to be the lonely ones IRL. Since relationships aren't a regular part of their lives, they have trouble viewing their inclusion in video games as anything other than masturbatory pandering. OTOH, if you are habitually in relationships, it seems weird that your character isn't in one. I mean, in most games, you're playing a world-shaking hero who is awesomely competent and probably quite rich from all those sweet monsters loots- why the hell wouldn't such a person have a girlfrie

That's why I'd favor taking what works about it (companions contributing to conversation) and remove it from the player's control. I love the idea of companions taking a more active role in conversations with random NPCs, but I don't think SoZ's implementation was the best way of accomplishing that.

I actually like Steam and am surprised to see so many who dislike it here; it doesn't actually require you to be online to play your games (hint: there's an option called "offline mode"). That said, I am pleased to hear Obsidian will be releasing it on GOG since I'm generally opposed to exclusivity and figure more diversity in options is always good. And of course, GOG is a great service itself (picked up PS:T and TW2 from it myself) and just as worthy of attention as Steam. EDIT: Corrected a typo where I wrote "Steam" instead of "GOG."

On the issue of zombies... Returning to what I said earlier, I think that zombies, if they should show up, should actually be pretty dangerous. Because logically speaking, they should be. We're talking about walking corpses, with no capacity for fear or any other emotion, who while slow-moving won't stop moving unless they're completely immobilized. Honestly, they should be a lot more difficult to defeat than a human footman or an elven archer, because you can't just hit them in a vital spot and kill them - they have no vital spots. At which point you're left to cleaving off their legs, ar

I don't know why this should come as a surprise. If you'd been reading the thread you'd know myself and several other posters said that Sawyer had made a similar comment back in the "What we know..." thread. They certainly made it easier, but guns were hardly the first weapon to disrupt the elite warrior class. The longbow, while requiring more training, similarly disrupted the effectiveness of heavy cavalry, especially on sloped terrain as in Agincourt. The crossbow, centuries before the gun, provided an easy to use projectile weapon that could penetrate a knight's armor. The pike, w

I'm a fan of games like The Witcher as well as George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice & Fire, so it'd be the top option for me. However, I'm willing to live with the second option as well.

How big the weapon is may be kind of a moot point from an isometric perspective. You're not going to spend a lot of time eying over the details.

Are people just pretending PS:T wasn't one of the three main games mentioned as an inspiration for Project Eternity? Because honestly, it's beginning to come off that way. In any case, I doubt they're adding guns because they're "kool." If anything, it's (as many posters have shown now) a risky move on their part. I imagine they added guns because they thought it would be interesting and different.

I personally prefer TSL or FO:NV, but MotB was still pretty damn awesome. So having Ziets on-board would be great. I'm not sure it's a realistic stretch goal, though. He'll work on Project Eternity if it fits into what he wants to do.

They also said it was a spiritual successor to Planescape: Torment, which is anything but a traditional fantasy setting, even if Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale are. So I think you were reading something into their statements that Obsidian didn't really intend. I think that's a bit unfair. For one thing, Tim Cain mentioned there were guns in a Eurogamer interview separately from Sawyer's comments. Furthermore, Sawyer didn't have to say the concept art was for Project Eternity and the artist needn't have made the art available if they wanted to keep the presence of firearms a "secret"