Longknife

Then they should at least offer cake, because the offer as they made it was laughably pathetic. Cake always sweetens the deal.

...well I would suppose that part of that deal was that the publisher would also pay x million $ if the kickstarter reaches y million $...resulting in a game with a budget of x+y. Otherwise this makes zero sense. It still makes zero sense because as it is now, Obsidian owns the IP and thus reaps all the rewards. I'd assume what happened is the other company tried to say "let us publish it because our name is bigger and therefore we can get more sales for your game," but unless this were true and the company could literally quadruple Obsidian's sales to the point where Obsidian STILL earns more despite sharing the profit, the offer is completely ****. Even IF it can quadruple the sales and turns them a profit, it's bogus because they'd lose their IP and only gain them short term profits, not so much longterm ones. Basically it's some giant company thinking they're so god damned awesome that their name will be enough to convince Obsidian to surrender their IP. That's what makes it so funny. It's like some guy demanding to get into a club for free because he's famous and he's egotistical enough to believe everyone will know him and bow to his every whim, and then the security is like "who the **** are you" and ends up stopping him and beating the **** out of him because they dunno him and don't see why he's entitled to enter for free.

Am I really the only one that just wants to see Sawyer, Avellone and Tim Cain sing Don't Stop Believin' by Journey? That'd be worth it's weight in gold...

Nope, you nailed it. Ok well then it's ****ing funny how pathetic of an attempt that was to steal the IP, and assuming a marketing director would be in charge of making such an offer (I have no clue), the obvious culprit is Bethesda Softworks.

Am I missing something? I see the obvious lack of logic in the statement and how ridiculous it is, but I can't help but feel like while I'm laughing at the stupid attempt to basically steal an IP with an offer only an idiot would take, I feel like everyone else is treating this like an extremely cunning plot that would fool many and is a disgrace to society, responsible for the downfall of several potential IPs. Sure, it'd be a disgrace, if it weren't so ****ing funny in how pathetic of an attempt it is. Or am I missing something?

Best part of the entire thing.

This is literally the only thing I've bitched about. :U

What if we used a viking warrior badass mascot that screams at dragons? I heard those are really good at building hype.

Companion comments on surroundings and characters are immersive, thought-provoking, entertaining and intriguing. I think companion interaction and response to such things is an absolute must, as it single-handedly serves so many purpose, from fleshing out companion personality to making the game feel more alive. Simple things like Boone getting mad if you take his beret or Raul commenting on Jacobstown are just....can't praise these enough. So simple, and yet so powerful for immersion and character depth and detail.

It's possible to support a side of an argument without neccesarily promoting it or lecturing, as long as the counter-argument is properly given some spotlight time as well. For example, in my opinion Fallout has generally thrown "the end justifies the means" into the "evil" category. The Master was defeated, the Enclave was defeated, and I highly doubt Caesar's Legion winning the Second Battle for Hoover Dam becomes canon (simply because so many hate the hell out of the Legion). Nevertheless, they all provide good arguments, Caesar's Legion in particular. I don't support the Legion, but I STILL agree with many of their points and would argue the NCR is more evil. Still, the game pushes you in the direction of supporting the NCR far more than it does supporting the Legion. In that sense, if a dev supports an ideology or a stance over another, I don't think they should be afraid to show it in game, as long as they can admit merits of the other side of the argument aswell. As long as the game can simply spark debate amongst users with it's events being points of citation, then it does it's job, imo. But you're right about abortion, I agree entirely. Certain themes in this thread just simply don't fall into "mature" the way they mean the word. Abortion is one of them.

I hope they clarify on this. Personally I have to admit class based rather than skill based sounds a bit disappointing, but if the classes each have a good ~6 or so subclasses, then that's fine.

It can be done, or as an alternative, the hinderance of slashing weapons versus heavy armor could be noticeable, but not crippling. In New Vegas, it was common that a single character would carry: 1) A sniper or long-ranged rifle of some sort for enemies like Deathclaws that you don't want near you at all. 2) An automatic weapon, whether SMG, rifle, very fast pistol or minigun for swarms of enemies (Cazadors). Alternatively a shotgun could be used instead. 3) A sidearm (hardcore mode only) to utilize a lighter-weight ammo type, to help conserve on rifle ammo where a rifle would be overkill for an enemy and to cut down on carry weight 4) An all-around rifle; something that's capable of handling any situation decently, so you have something to fall back on should the others fail/run out of ammo. It was completely doable, even on hardcore and even with 4 STR characters, and this was a game where ammo might have weight. Given that this game won't have ammo, I think being able to carry/being expected to carry a sword and, say, a mace, would be both doable and reasonable.

Still, it shouldn't simply be "you're an orc, +20 damage with clubs and warhammers." There needs to be different warhammers and clubs to choose from and each needs to be viable. It doesn't need to be perfect, for example the 9mm pistol and single shotgun are definitely viable in New Vegas, but you still probably won't use them for end-game simply because their cons outweigh the pros by comparison to others. I think Sawyer always described it as five tiers of weaponry. Typically tier 5 provided the most raw damage, but that didn't neccesarily make Tiers 1-4 useless. Tier one was more or less beginner weapons that few people would hold onto, but Tier 2-4 could be more useful for a character depending on your build. Lucky is perhaps the greatest example. Lucky would technically be ~Tier 2 (maybe 3), but was very often superior to all other higher-tier revolvers and pistols simply because the ammo for it was incredibly abundant and cheap, repair costs for Lucky were beyond cheap (125 caps?), the ammo was very lightweight and didn't encumber you, and most importantly, if you had the proper perks and a decent crit rate, Lucky would crit a good 40% of the time and a critical hit from Lucky meant it just hit as hard as a Brush Gun, a tier 5 rifle. Again, it was subjective because without the crit benefit, Lucky became nothing more than a cheap-to-use pistol, in which case Maria is better qualified as it's equally as cheap but has a higher damage-per-second. Or if weight or cost wasn't a concern for you, you might want ALSID, or a Hunting Revolver (though I personally never understood the appeal of the Ranger Sequoia or the Hunting Revolver given that they used rifle ammo, but dealt less damage. Guess those were weapons for people with perks like the Professional). At any rate, I love New Vegas. And I'd attribute my 1000+ hours of gameplay invested in New Vegas to: 1) The storyline and general reactivity of the world combined with it's philosophical themes. I love making new characters based on different ideologies and principles and seeing how well the world turns out under their influence. 2) Weapon balance. I love seeing just how strong the is or seeing just how well a fully modded Hunting Shotgun can snipe (pro-tip: it actually ****ing can with Trigger Discipline) And I'm estatic to see Sawyer considers this a very important part of Project Eternity. To me, that says this game will have incredible replay value.

Along those lines, have you given thought to designing a "legacy" system for weapons/armor? By that, I mean a system that allows for equipment to evolve beyond the usual systems of enchanting. As a brief example, let's say you've used the same longsword to kill 500 goblins, goblins come to recognize and fear the blade (regardless of who uses it). When using that weapon against goblins you could gain effects, ranging from the standard "+1 vs goblins" to special effects like causing fear, or special dialogue options. It's something that I've thought about for awhile, and that I think could go a long way to making the player grow attached to both the player and defining their character mechanically through equipment. Taking it a step further and allowing players to rename a weapon would, in my mind, go a long way to making the game feel inclusive of the player and reflective of his actions without without showing showing a meta-game achievement for their deeds. Plus, it encourages my nerd fantasies, and I am imagining a future game that actually detects signature weapons from save game imports, and adds it to loot tables based on stats... but probably asking too much! New Vegas sort of touched on this aswell. There were challenge perks that were unlocked when a certain weapon type was used enough. The challenge perks were tied to the character however, not the weapon. If they would simply tie the challenge perks to the weapons or armor instead, you're right, that might be a fun feature.

Please just no player-NPC romance....

I loved the weapon balancing of New Vegas. I love that there was actually reason to use Lucky over the Ranger Sequioa and that the best weapon was subjective, depending highly on your character's build. A character with high luck would find Lucky or That Gun amazing, whereas a character without high luck would consider them both bland, useless pistols for end-game. A character with high agility would enjoy using the Medicine Stick and it became his bread and butter, whereas a character with low agility or Trigger Discipline might find the gun fires too slow or reloads too slow to be worth using in combat. And again, a character with Fast Shot may use the AMR, but a character with Trigger might find it too slow to be useful, opting to use a Sniper Rifle variant instead. On the other hand, a Fast Shot user would be confined to an Assault Carbine or other highly-accurate SMG or shotgun whereas a Trigger Discipline user could enjoy anything from an Automatic Rifle to a 12.7mm SMG. This, for me, gave New Vegas a lot of replay value. I replay it over and over and over trying to design characters around certain weapon concepts, figuring out what they can and can't do when put in the right hands. It was interesting to see which weapons could do what in the right situation, and this truly made two characters that both utilize guns manage to feel different from each other in playstyle. Please, more of this. No "this Steel sword is 20% cooler than this iron sword" and gear that simply levels up with you with little to no variation at all. Give us variety, give us reason to experiment and give us reason to try and use different weapons as our main weapons, and have them perform differently in combat, of course.

Am I the only straight guy that finds it flattering to be hit on by a gay dude? I may be hella homophobic in regards to any actual male-male contact (seriously, a hug can bother me if it's longer than 3 seconds), but wtf being told I'm hot or likeable is nice no matter who gives the compliment.

This entire thread should require posters to prove they've actually played New Vegas before posting, as the amount of posts that should be answered with "Have you even played New Vegas" now is getting downright ridiculous. We're literally talking 1-3 lines of dialog per character just to say gay people exist in the world too. Veronica, you could ask "Have you ever been in love?" and she'd answer "were you ever curious? Yeah, I was once. I like to think it was love, and I hope she felt the same. I haven't seen her in a long time though." You could ask what happened and hear that the BoS didn't support their relationship because they believe everyone in their small society has a duty to procreate. BAM, over. Aside from this she would hint at her sexuality if you asked her to stay close, with nothing but a joke about preferring leggy blondes that could be taking seriously or not. Arcade Gannon, he'd say "now why hasn't some lucky man swept this bachelor right off his feet?" BAM over. Done. This is all he says, aside from your ability to recruit him by flirting if your own character is gay, but you'd literally never develop a relationship with him or flirt again. But they didn't put that in because they were pressured into it by fans (right?), but because they thought it suited the story. I guess for me that's the bottom line. I want the story, the world, the characters etc in it to be dictated by Obsidian's good judgment and not by filling any fan demands whatsoever. As I recall.... I'm afraid I don't know the person's name, but there was one homosexual developer/writer they had on staff responsible for some of the gay and lesbian characters. I can't recall the person's name, as sadly I saw them in a list of developers that had to be laid off when Obsidian had to make cuts. Just remember some quote by the person saying they felt proud of their portrayal of gays and lesbians in New Vegas (as they should've been). However, as someone else already mentioned, it seemed Sawyer made a quota and the devs adapted to it easily. Again, Gannon and Veronica weren't defined by their sexuality, these were minor characteristics of theirs. It wasn't like Gannon was flaming gay or Veronica hit on every woman under the sun; infact their dialog pertaining to their sexuality was very limited. This went for ALL characters in New Vegas. I think the only one who stood out as being somewhat defined by his sexuality was Jimmy, who was one of the only gay male prostitutes in the game, so it sorta made sense for his sexuality to define him and for him to be more flamboyant. I sincerely doubt fan pressure played a role in this as coming from FO3, there were practically no homosexuals there. Demands for New Vegas were typical Fallout expectations.

This entire thread should require posters to prove they've actually played New Vegas before posting, as the amount of posts that should be answered with "Have you even played New Vegas" now is getting downright ridiculous. We're literally talking 1-3 lines of dialog per character just to say gay people exist in the world too. Veronica, you could ask "Have you ever been in love?" and she'd answer "were you ever curious? Yeah, I was once. I like to think it was love, and I hope she felt the same. I haven't seen her in a long time though." You could ask what happened and hear that the BoS didn't support their relationship because they believe everyone in their small society has a duty to procreate. BAM, over. Aside from this she would hint at her sexuality if you asked her to stay close, with nothing but a joke about preferring leggy blondes that could be taking seriously or not. Arcade Gannon, he'd say "now why hasn't some lucky man swept this bachelor right off his feet?" BAM over. Done. This is all he says, aside from your ability to recruit him by flirting if your own character is gay, but you'd literally never develop a relationship with him or flirt again.

Avellone and Sawyer have produced a game before, chosen to include homosexual characters and successfully done it without having it detract from the story. They chose this and did it in a way that everyone agrees was perfect. I ask again, has anyone here even PLAYED New Vegas? But it's barely story relevant. It's no more story relevant than a guy saying "hold on, let me ask my wife, she'd know. I'll meet you back here in an hour." It's no more story relevant than some guy being black and that's that, with his skin color having no plot relevance or story importance other than it just being who he is. So why have it? Really, such homo correctness terrorism is hilarious. Because it's realistic. Again, is having people of different skin tones relevant? No, not at all. But it IS realistic. It WOULD be awkward if everyone in the game was hispanic, and it would even come off as hateful or racist if a specific raced weren't included. Same exact concept here. Homosexual characters should be included because this is the world we live in.

But it's barely story relevant. It's no more story relevant than a guy saying "hold on, let me ask my wife, she'd know. I'll meet you back here in an hour." It's no more story relevant than some guy being black and that's that, with his skin color having no plot relevance or story importance other than it just being who he is.

Ok has ANYONE in this thread played New Vegas? We're literally talking about 1-3 lines of dialog that reveals that some characters are infact gay/lesbian, nothing more. I fail to see how this eats up time and resources or otherwise gets in the way.

I don't even think OP is asking for homosexual relationships. He's just asking for homosexuals. This has nothing to do with the romance topic. He compared his wants to what Fallout New Vegas got. New Vegas doesn't let you have a homosexual boyfriend or girlfriend. All New Vegas did was acknowledged that homosexual people exist and that they're normal human beings just like you and me, and that not every gay man has an outrageous lisp and that not every gay woman wants to immediately bump pelvises with every female she finds and/or that she's butch as hell. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again.... Please imagine a game where the game gives you prompts to flirt exclusively with men, and men regularly hit on you as if it's the social norm. How would you feel? I sure as hell wouldn't play it, I may support gay rights and I don't discriminate at all, but I'm hella homophobe when it comes to my interactions with other men. Dunno why, just am.