Posbi

Type the first letter(s) of your state/province's name. Wait. After a few seconds the box should update automatically.

Just wanted to say that I'm really happy with the update and the video, though it's the screenshots that actually show the immense level of detail. I also hope that the folks with genuine technical problems get their access/pledges sorted out as soon as possible. Doesn't seem to be a regional problem though (Germany here; worked without any problems). Having said that, some of the complaining in this very thread is ridiculous, especially given that some folks apparently are too daft to maneuver a simple drop-down menu. If they need handholding for that how are they ever going to beat a game that has no quest markers?

IIRC the prison is in an underground dungeons that you first get to clear.

Well, ironically the only counter I've got to that is that we've only seen a small glimpse of Obsidian's stronghold design, and that purely from a meta-perspective it'd make sense to place some elements differently.

You know, that's pretty awesome. Nice one, Solviulnir!

Sure, we don't know the full design. But that's hardly a reason not to critique the flaws in the design we do know.

Add: I think it's worth discussing these points since they mainly concern cosmetic issues of the game, or partially issues with player immersion. That means the underlying concepts to make individual aspects work (the maze, the forum, etc.) aren't affected by any possible change in the visual design. It's better for us and for Obsidian if issues that are brought up can be corrected (if so wanted) with a comparably small effort.

Depends on how the actual idea of country houses fits the setting. As far as my understanding goes the idea of the country house, IRL, came up when castles in general had fallen out of style due to their limited value against "modern" firearms and their lack of comfort. But that was from the late 1700s onwards, not the early Renaissance-setting of Eternity. But that's just me nitpicking. I do agree with you that I'll generally be fine with whatever they come up with as long as it makes sense in game. The majority of the stone castles linked there were actually built by simple knights and lower nobles, for example counts. Sometimes very quickly, sometimes over dozens of years, with them being expanded/adapted by following generations. Which wouldn't be the worst template for the player stronghold. I initially suggested a simple ruined tower keep as an all-round solution. That'd allow for modest expansion without going overboard, and other elements like the maze could be placed in nearby woods. I suppose what I'd like to see is a more "organic" approach to the stronghold idea. As for the rest of teh castles, they indeed were erected by the prince electors or on order of the King. Don't know how the majority of the Welsh castles came to be, though I suppose that significantly more were constructed by or on the order of the English crown and the Welsh princes fighting them, with wooden moats being more often used by lower nobles than on the continent around the same time period. The thing is, that type of stronghold (a starfort, I believe) only became fashionable once (comparably) long-ranged and powerful artillery dominated the battlefield. It dates to the times when individual nobels really no longer had the personal power they might have held in prior centuries. Sure, a noble would be in command there, but it would be as little his stronghold as the Pentagon is owned by the highest-ranking general there. Different time, different social functions I suppose. But I'm very glad you bring up these points. Best way to spot the flaws in my arguments, and arguably the best way to discuss means to make the player stronghold a better concept.

Again, it comes down to what the stronghold's ingame meta-function was and how it came to be. Problem is, we only have that one small comparison shot to work with. As for the pictures I posted: their main point is to emphasize that function defines form. Ironically, that fact devalues your images to a great degree. Or rather, they make my point rather than yours. Their form follows their function: temporary defensive retreat (Irish ring fort), noble seat of power built back from medieval fortification (French chateau) and private seat of a noble family (English country house). To elaborate on this, our screenshot isn't the first as part one seems to indicate its elements have been there, together, and only fallen into ruin. It's not the second, as that'd mean fewer outer defenses/old castle structures refurbished into a renaissance chateau. And neither is it the third (there the maze would fit, but the outer walls wouldn't). But, okay, I'll stop here. I feel I'm splitting hairs here over something we actually seem to agree on: the stronghold should make sense ingame, right? And to that end what we've got is far from perfect so far. As for keeping it modest, I do agree with you in principle, but the castle I posted and Mor reposted? That is a pretty modest, standard, lower tier noble, medieval castle. For more examples, take this link here (it shows all castles in my home state, separated by counties; the main menu should bring you to a national and Europe-wide listing ). It's in German, but there are pictures and layouts for many of them. Another one is The Castles of Wales (in English). You'll see that most high medieval stone castles are either as large or substantially larger than the example I posted.

*shrugs* As is the stronghold preview we got.

If I had to limit it down to one thing I would pick reactivity.

I have no idea how old satananas is.

This here looks decent. far from perfect, and many elements don't really mix that well, but it's certainly better than the example above.

You know, the initial images you link to in that thread are way better than what you've posted here.^^

Well, I do admit that my criticism is based on what little we know/have been shown, so there's a chance the final product will look differently. But I do believe that, given the level of maturity of us players and of the game itself as Obsidian envisions it, the points both Solviulnir and I have raised deserve to be addressed. As is, both the D'Anise's castle (BGII) - limited as it was - and the Crossroads Keep (NWN2) make far more sense from a meta-perspective than what little Obsidian has presented to us. Just to make this clear: I don't expect our stronghold to be a carbon copy of the Krak des Chevaliers. But a stronghold - ingame and outside - follows a certain logic, and the glimpse we've been given really shows none. This here, for example, would be a decent player stronghold in opinion. It's got the military aspects, it sticks to features of the landscape, it's got ample space without being wasteful, it's not too expansive, it offers enough choices for ingame construction (you could, for example, just start with the ruined main tower and expand from there on), it's got agriculture, a nearby river, the possibility of a village etc.

So, I'm late to the party. Probably too late. But here's my two cents. Okay, I've thought a bit about what kept me unsatisfied/worried about the player stronghold preview and I think I've been able to pin my worries down by now: the preview, well, it's less than stellar on several levels. Yes, I know that's harsh, and it is not meant as an accusation against the people who do the modeling and rendering, and I apologize if I've just insulted them. However, having said that, here's my reasoning for being so critical. The problems are on the conceptual level. Project Eternity and its background try to present a world rooted in what I'd call magical realism (it's fantasy with magic and monsters, but adheres to basic RL logic), a world that's going through a political, economic and technological transition. There's a been a war, there are still tensions, and the placement and design of fortifications and settlements should represent as much. Even if we don't go with the full medieval European design there are a few basic functions any stronghold's placement would come down to, regardless of cultural and/or time period inspiration: border protection, trade route protection, vital landmark protection (river ford, mountain pass, etc.), settlement protection. From this also flows its general design. Example? Crossroads Keep from NWN2. It presides over a crossroads, a junction of trade routes. What it does needs to be represented in the general map layout (what is its basic function?) - is it watching over a river ford, is it controlling a trade route, is it the administrative center over nearby villages, etc. - as well as it needs to show in the keep's own layout (design). What the stronghold has to have is an ingame meta-function that goes beyond player stronghold. It needs a raison d'être, a reason why it's there in the first place! What we have here is just an artificial hodgepodge of elements that, by and large, have no right to exist there in the first place. You need to decide what this place's original meta-function was/is and develop it from there on. Because right now it's just a shambles of disparate elements that are placed there because you want them, and not because they make any kind of in-game sense. I know that what we see is a WIP, so my critcism can only be limited and based on the elements we are shown here. And there is one thing that holds true for almost every interpretation of a stronghold: Inside the walls space is a limited commodity. Is it a fortress? Then where are moat and drawbridge and weapons emplacements? And why does it look more like a theme park? Where are the stables and barracks and forges, and why does everything waste so much space? You do realize how a fortress looks, don't you? It's huge, imposing and uses the terrain to its advantage. This here is a fortress (Krak des Chevaliers): Is it a noble's manor? Then why is the house we see on the upper right corner so dull and small, and why is the place so heavily fortified? A manor isn't a fortress; it's a place where you live your everyday life in the highest possible amount of comfort. Is it a settlement? Too few houses spread too far; no obvious craftsmen; no seat of power. Now, settlements don't need to have seats of power, but since it's supposed to be your settlement... Take this here, for example. It's pre-medieval but conveys the idea well enough. Houses are clustered closely together to save space. The larger the space, the more able bodied men are needed to defend it! Limited agriculture is done inside the courtyards of each house cluster. This holds true to an even greater extent for walled medieval/renaissance-era settlement. A castle/noble's keep? Too much space is wasted, there's no visible center to it all, and it's not fortified enough. Worst of all - and that counts for all iterations aside from the manor house - there's no visible geographic component that suggest why the thing's been placed there in the first place. Take this here, for example. It sits on an elevated rock formation and guards a small river and a trade route below: The thing you have to ask yourselves is "What was this place, and how can it become what we want it to be?" Right now the apparent logic simply seems to be "We want a player stronghold with pre-existing accomodations for different races and classes." What needs to be established, however, is why such a place exists right there in the first place, and why it exists in its current form. So, what does this mean for the general design of the place? First, lets sum up what we have so far: you have to make up your minds why this place is where it is for what reason BEFORE the player becomes the owner. What was its original function, and does what we have fit that description? Secondly, how can you achieve what you want without it looking as - sorry guys - ridiculously stupid as the images above? And the most simple and versatile alternative here would be a tower keep sitting on a rock spur above a river ford. You can literally use that for everything. Want a maze? Nearby woods. A place for bards to perform? Your great hall or a tavern at the foot of the hill. You're a mage? Then this is your mage tower. Fighter? Noble. And each of those variants can be mixed, and your stronghold can expand organically to fit them. It also allows for enough accomodation inside to house your companions, and offers enough of a reasonable location to have mini-quests, battles and you doing "administrative" work. Whatever you do, please promise me it'll make more sense than what you have now.

How about "no"?

Finding out about Project Eternity and pledging for the Kickstarter on day one really got me back in the mood to go back and replay the old Infinity engine games. Now, my original 4 CD version of Planescape: Torment was no longer up to the task, but thankfully there's GOG.com. Reinstalling it and the conveniently linked mods to beef up the game's resolution I soon came to a somewhat surprising conclusion: Even though the game is now almost thirteen years old it still looks stunning. Really, get your copy on GOG.com and load it up with the mod for higher resolutions. It's beautiful. Quite frankly, even though so much time has passed and graphics engines are so much powerful today I really wouldn't mind a game that looks like Torment because the art quality is astonishing. All it needs are tweaks to the character models and the inclusion of animations to the 2D background itself: licking flames, curtains moving in the wind, stuff like that. But other than that? Give me game that looks like the 13 year old Torment and I'll be happy!

I voted for "A lot! Rivers streaming and real sea-waves; vehicles moving, trees swinging, doors and windmills moving, gigantic boulders rolling and walls crushing in dungeons, mechanical puzzles and bridges, gigantic creatures, dragons actually flying!" as long as they can integrate it into the 2D background, which they should. Shadowrun Returns is doing something very similar. Oldschool is one thing, but there's no reason not to include these things if they offer the necessary extra bit of immersion.

The symbol is fine. Do you people really have to bitch about every single thing?

I read that AP cost something in excess of 8 million to make. I doubt that much could be raised via crowdfunding.

I'm rather positive that we'll break the 2.4 million mark at some point, but unless there's a massive new influx of people pledging towards the end I'd say it's realistic not to expect too much more.

I wrote a chapter for my novel's sequel. Chapter 19, to be precise: Embers of Hope.

It'll probably take consecutively longer to reach each new stretch goal from now on. Kickstarter usually slows down quite a bit after the first few days. I'd say we won't see the 1.8 million goal reached before the start of next week.