Wintersong

Do you know how stupid... (yes, I said stupid. s-t-u-p-i-d) that argument is? Truly stupid. If you want combat, go out there and have some. You want adventure? Go out there and have some. You want some friendships? Go out there and have some. You want to manage inventories? Go out there and manage some. Want to kill people? Guess what. Seriously, stop it. If you really want to irrationally hate romances in videogames, do it. But at least have decency of using non-childish arguments for it. At least when we are talking about Obsidian and their intentions of a solid and mature game. Tell me about limited resources, tell me about feature creep, tell me about difficulty in writing, tell me about something related to the game itself but stop slinging insults that don't really defend your point.

I must play a dwarven ranger. Now. Thank you very much for the information and stuff like having "races", cultural backgrounds and such. Capitalist asian elves, socialist caucasian orcs and communist african dwarves ftw!!! (not meant to offend anyone)

I have no interest in Linux but I'm fine with Obsidian taking money from Linux users to get them a Linux version of the game.

I have no interest in playing evil characters but in D&D terms, the only kind of evil characters I'd play would be Lawful Evil (tyrant type). Which is cool because that kind of evil can work in group and society. But it's good to have options so the players can define their character beyond some stats and class. Consequences, good and bad, should exist. But I don't think that a mass murderer sociopath pointessly destructive PC makes much sense in this kind of game. Unless you are playing Bethesda "RPG".

Forcing the fantasy world to be politically correct certainly harms beliavility. In my point of view, of course. I have no issues with having only gay romances in the game. Or only straight. Or any kind of mix. As long as it's not just for the sake of it and/or marketing.

Well, a mundane fighter specialized in sword&board would peak and then he could master another style, learn rogue/thief stuf... rinse and repeat as long as physical and mental cualities are still good enough. But the usual magic systems give the same value to the time needed to get a great weapon specialization in longsword than to learn to cast a high level spell that basically can grant wishes or shapeshifting into the Tarrasque. Arcane Magic, unless we are talking about the Discworld's magic, is supposed to be superior to mundane means so I find fine to have magic users to be more powerful as loong as the pacing to obtain that power makes sense. Then balance comes and BAMF! you can forget about old wizards because yours will peak while being a teen. Unless he rarely adventure. But just rambling because even if PE is a single player game, it's not a book and class balance is needed.

For some reason, devs get the idea that realistic/"simple" weapons/armors are "unfun". Or not "cool enough". Imagine if the armors of the guys in Lord of the Rings were like those in WoW. And let's please keep japanese/korean/chinese stuff out of the topic for our own sanity.

What prevents your character from ignoring the non intellectual romances? I can accept the "Limited resources" argument to ask for no romances, as it can be valid. But implying that only the intellectual romances can be ignored? Nope. Also, the poll options are so so. So you can be 1) gay, 2) macho sex, 3) femsex?, 4) 'the other options are "Meh" to me', 5) Give me 1), 2) and 3), please! So I cannot vote.

The "harm" comes in taking away beliavility. Don't get me wrong, because I don't really care about the games features. Yep, I don't care. The only thing I care is that when the game is done and I play it, I have a good time and some fond memories about the experience (just keep the game an RPG, ok?). That doesn't mean that I'm not a bit tired of "marketing" determining stuff or that I won't bother sometimes to visit this forum. If a companion happens to be gay, does that mean that he automatically should be made love interest for male PCs? Or can we allow him to be gay but have no interest whatsoever in the PC? Should we force him into being bi because we must balance our love interest companion options between males and females? The only sexuality that the player should determine is that of his/her character. There is certainly no consequence when you are guaranteed by marketing that no matter if you choose male/female and hete/homo/bi, you are bound to find love interest. I know that Obsidian must create a game that players actually want to play and such but there should be limits to the things they concede to the players. That said, everything in the game should bow to the mighty story, which is the engine of the game, so if the story says "Oh" then it's "Oh". Realism... I dislike when my characters can carry a bazillions diffferent heavy armors in the backpack (which happens not to be magical). There is a line between realism in a game and the fun factor, and that line is a big headache for game developers and us (the different types of players). Altough I prefer my games to be fun, I have the right to demand them to be "realistic" as much as it's possible within reason. In an RPG that becomes quite important to me. Having hyper realistic and mature conversations with my companions while I juggle some adamantium breastplates is not going to score very well in my list. Not that I want such a level of "realism" as to have to send the characters to the bathroom, the period once a month for the females and stuff like that. Mostly because I want a cRPG, not the Sims RPG. As in any of my posts, just my opinion. Surely wrong in many things but still mine.

So my body regenerates to bring all my cells to a stage of 10-15 years old? Cool! And just because I don't have a childish idea about romances in videogames? And because I think that housing/stronghold is actually nice to have? Wow! You saved me so much Botox!!! I'll agree with the "No" to voice acting. Epic money drain right there and altough it may add to the presentation, it limits the content in a very irritating way. Bringing BioWare in? I don't care in any way about that. If Obsidian were to decide that they want that, more power to them because I'm not the one creating the game but them. But you certainly failed your Diplomacy check there.

We are not our characters. You may be a social monkey but if you have given your character an Intelligence and Charisma scores of 3 (over 18), then your character should pay the consequences of such poor choices. Base content shouldn't be denied to you but optional content (that includes conversation options) should be filtered by your characters' stats. And it's not like you couldn't use Imoen as "Face" in BG, for example.

If you want some combat turn off your computer and go find some. If you want some heroism turn off your computer and go find some. If you want some friends turn off your computer and go find some. If you want some loot turn off your computer and go find some. Ad eternum. I say yes to romances in the game. But only if many different conditions are meet, of course. Obviously, one of them is that I want them to be the best they can be and not some stupid thing like... well, the already mentioned examples. Which are the roles of the companions in this game? Big party or small one? Can we develop different kind of relationships with them based in our in-game actions and conversations? Can we lose companions? (be it death in combat, betrayal due to not getting along, some kind of event triggered by the PC, etc) If companions are unkillable and will stick to the group no matter what, you are limiting the possible kind of romances that you can have in the game (bye bye truly bad ending romances). On the other hand, why should I be limited to companions for my romances? If the scope of the game allows it, NPCs can be a good source of romance (I said "romance" and not "sex", and NPCs can be killed/kidnapped/brainwashed/zombified more easily than companions!). Companions with their more common presence can be considered as better candidates for developing romance/frienship/rivalry but I'd prefer to think that my character can actually socialize with more people than just my companions and the usual Questgiver NPC. Roleplaying game is not (just) combat, classes and level ups. Just saying. Not asking for diluting the game experience into some kind of Sims though. Keep that in mind if you are going to bash me, huh? I don't want the content (of any kind) to be forced into the game. I don't want to be excluded just because (or because a dev doesn't like it) either. If it fits, it fits. Just do your best to try to make it the best it can be. Between other things, this means that I hate decissions like: -"We must have a love interest for each sex". Why? If it only makes sense to have a single love interest and that the said love interest is only for female PCs, I see no problem with that! I can see how some would say that it's be unfair or unfun to be denied a game experience because of their sex selection in character creation but: 1) it seems to be fashion to call "unfun" anything that you don't like, 2) ROLEPLAYING game. It's like complaining that your fighter cannot cast spells like a wizard, heal like a cleric or sneak like a rogue. Choices with consequences are not unfun!! -"We must have all kinds of sexual orientations". Must? Why should we? The setting should define such kind of things to start with. If the society in PE doesn't care who you romance as long as you do your duty of procreating with the other sex to create new generations, then the game should reflect that. If they are all prude heterosexuals, more of the same. As in "real life", exceptions do exist and have their consecuences if needed (and can actually be interesting stories, keeping your forbidden romance a secret). Altough I have no issues with adding different kinds of sexual orientations in the game (I'm not my character so he/she can romance anyone that I think that makes sense for his/her personality), I think that adding them just because is not good idea. Wasn't mentioned in the BioWare forums other "deviations" that should also be included in the name of equality? -"There must be sex!" Riiiiiight. Stuff like gifts in DAO were stupid. The intention was good but the system was not. Influence with my companions should directly depend on being with me during adventures (and my choices there), very reduced for those who stay at the tavern (player house funding pending) because they depend on listening about my exploits and have less interaction with me, and not against gifts/bribes as long as it's not DAO. I'm sure I wanted to say some more things but I just had a random encounter with Block so I'll only add: I don't want romances to exist just to detract from the overall game. If they do exist (one or many), I want them to exist to enhance the experience beyond the "Hulk smash!!!" that is the core of the usual cRPG. If they have a place in the game, I don't want a devs saying "We don't make them because we find them difficult". I want them to say "Hey, they are difficult but the only way to improve is practice so we are going to do our best" (I improved my english through practice so yeah! Still not perfect tough). All of that if the romances actually make sense in the context of the game and it doesn't impact negatively other more basic features.

Considering that magic is tied to soul, that everybody has soul and that the PC and companions have strong souls (or something like that), it'd not surprise me if no matter the class all of them have access to some kind of "magic perks".

And here I was thinking that this thread was about the Book of Erotic Fantasy... What I dislike about magic systems is how mages/wizards reach high levels of power too fast. Yeah, ok, they are heroes but still... I'd suppose that someone specialized in just swinging his sword should peak in power a lot faster than a magic user, who should require more decades to master a power that can basically alter the reality (anti-matter fireballs, gravity alterating leveitation spells, brain chemistry alterating charm spells,...) with all the risks about learning the spells (without killing themselves in the process) and despite some possible formal training to reduce "accidents". In any case, if magic is part of the world, I would expect to see that properly reflected. Is magic forbidden? Are some disciplined banned? Which is the impact of magic use on "mundane" technologies? Do they use magitek?

People find easier to relate to humanoid beings, be it fantasy or sci-fi. You could create a truly alien being (not just the body) but it's too risky if you are planning to use it as PC/companion. I can understand people wanting something different "for a change" the same as other people want more of the same. If Obsidian tries to do something new and people don't like it (new isn't always success), people will complain about why not stick to the classics. Giving the classic races some twists is good for me. I liked those elves that cannot stand iron or sacred stuff. And which are our options if Obsidian doesn't do the classics*? Mantis warriors? Lizard people? Catfolk? (if there is poll, I want these) Avians? (which wouldn't fly so meh) Centaurs? Mindflayers? Treefolk? Elementals? Oh, tieflings are just humans with demonic/devilish traces on them. Succubus? Human with demonic traits. So not so different from elves or dwarves. Just saying. * elves seem to be in anyways

Oh my... It would not be the end of the universe if we could get an RPG that doesn't force the characters to brek into others people houses to get random loot, to bash crates "just in case", in which wolves don't drop weapons/armors/keys/potions as loot, etc. Just saying.

I'd be happy with Wasteland 2 level of funding. Ouya level of funding seems too incredible.

Isn't Kickstarter about donating money for a project that you want to support? And that in exchange, and if you choose so, you can get some goodies for your donation? Because you know, you could donate $10,000 and ask nothing in return for that money. So, not really knowing anything solid yet and with still 30 more days to go to get the real funding of the game (which will be sprinkled with more information about the game), you dare to judge the game as if it was already finished and we had hit April 2014. You sir... 1) Party of 6? Why? Maybe it's of only 3 including your character. I don't remember any party size being mentioned yet. 2) 5 classes is not enough? How do you know when you have no idea of the classes and how are they designed? 3) House? Well, not having started on really creating the game, I'd bet that they are calling it "house" just in case before deciding upon expanding the idea or not. It's not like we have the game funded (that won't really happen until the money is taken from the pledgers) and with that stretch goal met, right? 4)Companions relaxing in house supposes that they will earn XP without doing stuff? That is no fact. They may or they may not. If Obsidian thinks that gameplay wise is the best option, then it'll become fact. Otherwise, just speculation about afeature that you dislike. 5) Soul system forced... I see no facts in your hatred speech. You have no idea and just using wild speculation you pretend to talk about facts. 6) You run out of stuff to say, right? Unless you can prove me that you have been able to time travel to the future (which is possible) and then back to the past (which is not possible), you are just out of context. Be glad that supporting a Kickstarter project is optional. Leave and come back in 2014. Maybe you will like the game. Or maybe not. Meanwhile, the rest of us still have 30 more days to get more precise information about what the game is going to have (and decide if we want to cancel, increase/decrease our pledge). It's also quite tiresome how some people insist that Obsidian should be 24/7 telling us news about the game. Obsidian is Obsidian and not Brian Fargo. Also, even a weekend is a weekend for Brian Fargo. Obviously, Obsidian should be very interested in keeping alive as much as possible the interest of the people about the game during this month and try to minimize the mistakes as much as possible (all of them make mistakes, like Fargo back in the day). But all these "internet wisemen" telling Obsidian what to do, when to do it and how to do it, stopped being amusing long time ago.

I prefer expansion packs. The problems with DLC include ridiculous pricing/content ratios, the feeling that the content of that DLC has been taken away from the core (especially day 1 DLC), etc. The good news about it is that you can pay just for the stuff that you want in your game. An expansion pack forces all its content so if there is something that you were not interested in (like they add a class and a companion you have no interest in), you are out of luck. Vanity DLC are totally ok for me tough. No need to wait for expansion packs for some visual candy only stuff. Just price it right, ok? About companions, classes, races, new quests and such? Pack them all in the expansion pack! And give me a link to pre-purchase it!!!!

I find your definition of "we" disturbing. Translations are fine to have. But considering the circusmtances, it's one of those things that can be done after release. Yes, after release. Ask the guys at Runic. I much prefer extra content, like a solid housing/stronghold system, added for release than having it switched to get room for translations. That said, if possible, I'd prefer some translations done for release (without taking the place of other features like the mentioned housing). Translations help but won't break the game by their absence in release.