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 games.

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 logical implications of the general assumptions they make about the world. The reason for that, I think, is that too often they become pure escapism from the "cold" and "unromantic" world of the present. A little escapism isn't bad (let's be honest, we all indulge in it), but when it becomes so unbridled I can't help but feel it potentially encourages an unhealthy attitude about the present world and the past. If people want a fantasy that's completely divorced of historical realities they can have that - but it wouldn't be the Forgotten Realms, Middle-earth, or even Greyhawk, which are all fairly obviously (and often explicitly) modeled on the European Middle Ages.

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... they weren't. You're unable to differentiate a fantasy world from our own history. This is NOT a game set in medieval history, it's HIGH FANTASY, it means completely made up world and rules. In THIS world the advancement of science could very well be evil, unlike in ours, so your stance that those who wish to delve into the known sword&board fantasy without firearms are somehow longing after our own medieval history is completely incorrect. Except you're the one who brought up the idea that adding guns is bad because it doesn't allow you to escape a world of science, which you typified as "cold" and "unromantic." I disagree with that notion. I'm fine with the idea that fantasy can be different from history (Pratchett's fantasy doesn't fit into any particular era, for example - nor does Planescape) - but it sounds to me like you want an idealized medieval fantasy without any of the nasty stuff or any of the real technological advances that were made.

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... they weren't.

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"? As you say, Project Eternity isn't steampunk anyway, but I agree with your central point. Compared with classical high fantasy, steampunk isn't all that played out at all - at least not outside of fan works or anime.

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 girlfriend/boyfriend? I don't know, some of the people I know who are most passionate about video game romances are actually happily married with children. Not all of them, of course, but enough that I think it's unfair to stereotype. EDIT: I'm not sure comparing homosexuality to bestiality is helping your case any. Anyhow, my point was that while I agree Obsidian shouldn't feel pressured to add LGBT characters (nor anything else) for the sake of political correctness that if they did want to add LGBT options, there's a perfectly valid precedent for it in history. So they shouldn't feel pressured from the opposite side either - that homosexuality is somehow a new, "modern" cultural phenomenon... because it's not.

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, arms, etc. until they no longer can move or attack you. That sounds a lot more dangerous, terrifying, and interesting than standard bags of XP which take barely any more effort than an RoUS to defeat.

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, while hefty and unwieldy as a personal weapon, when used by a peasant militia, could provide serious stopping power to enemy troops. The point is, yes, the gun, more than any of the above, brought an end to the "age of the knight." But the age of the knight was a lot less knightly than most people assume to begin with. Similarly, guns and samurai coexisted for quite some time and their ban during the Tokugawa regime was only effectual on non-Tokugawa forces: the Tokugawa themselves still used guns as a part of their military power. In any case, elite soldiers hardly disappeared from the field with the introduction of guns, as the existence of units like the grenadiers, hussars, and janissaries demonstrate. Nor did the nobility (if that's what you mean) evaporate all of a sudden - republicanism didn't advance significantly until more than four centuries later. In other words, a fireball spell. Or ice storm. Or chain lightning. You're correct that the introduction of gunpowder artillery changed the way fortresses were designed. But, like a lot of the changes you mention, that took time and refinement of the primitive cannons at the end of the Middle Ages into the more efficient artillery of the Gunpowder Age. The star fort did make its first debut in the 1400s in Italy, but most fortifications were still castles during the period. More importantly though, very few works of fiction actually try to replicate a honest to goodness, old fashioned medieval siege where you starve the castle out for months or years. So I'm not sure that cutting to the chase of knocking its walls down really is something people will be all that upset about. You seem to be implying that knights were somehow more civilized. I don't believe that. Raping and pillaging is an honored tradition of pre-modern warfare . In fact, during the Hundred Years War (1300s-1400s), it was standard English policy to practice a scorched earth campaign against the French. Rape in war was, while discouraged by the Church and moral authorities, widely considered proof of a soldier's masculinity and valor in battle. So I'm not sure where you got your impression that somehow war crimes originated with the Landsknecht.

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" as you imply. The truth is that Obsidian has long had a reputation of playing with standard genre expectations and I find it surprising you expected something a bit more vanilla. But Tolkien isn't the end all, be all of fantasy (much as I admire him and enjoy his works). There's plenty of other examples of fantasy that exhibit a different attitude towards technology and modernism, from Terry Pratchett (whose settings seem to be a blend of modern, medieval, and Victorian-era culture) to George R.R. Martin (which has a very cynical view of medieval culture). If Obsidian was interested in going a "safe" route with Project Eternity they wouldn't have put it up on Kickstarter: they would have pursued investment from publishers the old-fashioned way. While it's true they may alienate some people by putting firearms in the game, it's also likely they'll alienate others by making the game isometric or using RTWP instead of a purely turn-based system. Some people are notably upset in the other direction: that the game is too traditional (i.e., is pseudo-historical fantasy with elves and dwarves). I think in all honesty that people are being a bit too prickly - we hardly know anything about the game except for some very basic ideas and concepts. Until we see these ideas in action, it's too early to say whether they work or don't work. Given Obsidian's credentials and the credentials of the people working for it, I'm willing to put my faith in their ability to make it work. But ultimately we'll have to wait and see.