Karkarov

Thanks for posting the thread because I was about to if you didn't. I have two serious issues with this survey, which I did take since I did get the Eternity 1 collectors. 1: You never give room to explain why we liked one item better than another, or why we might have been happier or dissatisfied with a particular item. 2: Your survey questions about what we would like in the next collectors box are meaningless. No one is going to say "no don't put that in". You don't account for "so... money is limited what item would you be okay without?" All the final questions would have been better served by a simple "rank these items 1-10, 1 being the one you want the most".

Nah that would make it worse. It isn't just about sample size, it is also about bias. This is why you should never trust poll data at face value or based on sample size. RPGCodex is extremely biased about Eternity, so their data wouldn't be particularly useful and would likely skew the results. This is why the best market research is blind, and or comes from someone who doesn't care one way or the other. Because they have nothing invested in their answer, they will answer honestly.

Well as a person who refused to discuss his job in any real way online lets just say I have.... similar requirements in mine. I would say it has a lot less to do with the size of their company, and considerably more to do with these three things. 1: Forums are too small a sample size, the vast majority of the people who play their games either don't know this forum exists or will never participate on it. Even if you added steam forums, the now sparse kickstarter comment section, and other social media it still might not be enough to validate the effort and cost. 2: I feel like they have enough experience making this type of game that their finger is pretty much already on the pulse of fan expectations versus what actually works in an isometric RPG. 3: They can always use critical reception and fan reviews of POE 1 to do this research at this point. No need to look for additional sources, and reviews are likely to contain a better analysis of what worked versus what didn't than random forum posts will.

Well we also have to be fair and realize work on Eternity 2 probably started shortly after most of the work was completed on White March, if not slightly before then. So there should be a better turn around hopefully.

I don't know that I would go all that far, but yes, people who claim today that Baldur's Gate 2 is the best RPG ever made are letting their nostalgia have a stronger say that it should. At the time they came out they were great games. By todays standards of gameplay, more nuanced story, and especially graphics.... they are pretty average. Eternity isn't perfect. It has serious pacing problems, the setting does need work, many things in game for "backers" were not good features and would have been better off left out. It has never been a vastly inferior, unplayble, game breaking bug mess that many of the die hards on RPG Codex and this forum say it is though.

Why is that? Other than the formation movement and pauses, what's the actual difference? Gee I don't know. The fact that you can't spam potions? Your gear is not random and named retarded crap like "runic mercenary cleaver of the steadfast" or something similar? Eternity can actually be hard sometimes? You control more than one character? Enemies are actually intelligent sometimes not just random mooks who run at you spamming everything they have? None of the levels are ever "randomly generated"? There is no Cow level? I can literally do this all day. Eternity has as much common with Diablo as Baldur's Gate does. Not very much beside their view angle, RPG genre, and having a class system. In all seriousness, take my advice. If you hate the game as much as you claim, and are as upset as you suggest by the forums and the people on it.... do something for your own health and well being. Never log into this forum again, and never play or read anything related to Eternity again.

Well you can hide the minimap, and you can get a full screen map just by pressing the M button and holding it down. I thought it was weird too, but once you get used to it the system works okay.

If they bring back the watcher, maybe, but I honestly think they would be better off starting fresh with something new.

So you are upset because the people who made the video game... actually made decisions about how to make the video game, and or actually made it? Kickstarter is not a voting platform. If you like a project you can back it, maybe you will get some input on that project. Maybe your feedback will get through and slightly inform some design choices. Most likely it won't, but at least you have the opportunity. Thing is, if the team making the game didn't have their own ideas, gameplay, and mechanics concepts, the game would probably be a steaming pile of crap. I actually don't mean this in a spiteful or mean way at all, but I do have to say it. Backers like yourself are why many companies that have a "publisher" option are avoiding kickstarter now. The constant never ending negative feedback loop does not do anything to help the developers, or your fellow backer. Yet every major kickstarter that garners real money is buried in users like yourself that just have nothing but negative things to say. As a backer you have the right to give feedback, and you should. The feedback can't just be a constant negative bashing, with no balance, and nothing constructive to it. Why? Because people don't take, or listen to, that kind of feedback, and they shouldn't. That isn't an Obsidian thing either, it isn't a kickstarter thing, it's "how the real world works" thing.

Well Demeisen I think that was what Obsidian observed too and why they started mucking with difficulty so much. With "story time" they can cater to the people who just want to experience the game, and they can make "balls hard you die I kill you" difficulty for the other group. Many modern RPG's aren't balanced for crap though, you got that right. Eternity turns into a cake walk about 50% through. Witcher 3 is hard at first especially on high settings, then by the 20% point if you aren't playing on the highest settings you could sleep through combat. Dragon Age Inquisition to feel like "normal" difficulty had to be set to the second highest difficulty. Shadowrun Returns and Hong Kong never really feel hard unless you end up in a blatantly unbalanced fight where you are outnumbered 3 or 4 to one. The list goes on.

On this forum maybe. Meanwhile steam says 87% of reviews are positive and considering there are almost 900 reviews that is a lot of "I like this game" versus this forums "I don't like it". Personally I think the combat is fine. Is it the greatest thing since sliced bread? No. But do you actually play isometric RPG's for the combat system? I like work building, good plot, and replayability myself.

Eternity only had deep complex combat if you forced yourself to make it that way. That was your choice as a player, it is not actually how the combat worked for the vast majority of people. Most players given the choice between one powerful move that always works, and three situational moves that work sometimes, will take the one move. What I also find even more interesting is that it is probably easier to solo the "highly complex" Eternity than it is to solo the "dumbed down" Tyranny.

No they didn't. If Josh had made his case for whatever feature to his higher ups, sold them on it, and they agreed it was a great idea, nothing said on this forum would have kept it out of the game. The repair system didn't vanish because of forum spew, it vanished because they couldn't find a way to make it do what they wanted and not feel like a tacked on element that didn't really serve a purpose. You can voice your opinion on this forum, Obsidian might consider it, they may even go with an idea very similar to something you post, but don't kid yourself. Obsidian is making the call, not the forums. You are offering feedback and suggestions, nothing more.

Worse is subjective, but the combat is quite objectively massively simplified on just about all fronts. It's... Trivial. There's nothing interesting to do. The character combos are cool... And that's about it, really. Yeah but eternity combat isn't that interesting either. I could beat the whole game using one character repeating the same tactics in every fight. You see my point? Maybe on the surface it is simpler and dumbed down, but having 50 skills versus 5 doesn't matter if you only ever use 5 skills either way. The "mechanics" behind the curtain are different, but the execution is very similar in gameplay. What is the difference between an energy meter that regens from you attacking and a simple cooldown? If they both take 10 seconds to "fill" the answer is absolutely nothing, it is just flavor. I would also point out despite my opening comment, other than combo's, and spell creation, I didn't suggest anything else combat related be brought over. Also Bill, nice to hear from you too. I also want to throw credit where it is due, KDubya is right. The word highlights you can mouse over and right click are really nice and should definitely make it into Eternity 2 if at all possible. Whoever came up with that deserves a pat on the back.

Lol at all the combat complaints. It is no worse than Eternity. Things to consider keeping, not going to waste my time on what isn't worth bringing over - Main character actually being a part of the plot and not a faceless cipher (get it, c wut I did thar?) - Classless system works great, build your character how you want without worry of gating certain options. - Companions having unique skills and abilities the player can't get. - Spell creation HOWEVER, this would only be if the skills system is similar to Tyranny. In Tyranny it works and is valuable because in case you didn't notice, there are not that many "talent" based abilities, especially early in the game. Landry with all points in one spec for example will only have 3-4 spells. Think about that. Imagine playing a mage in Eternity who only has 4 spells? - Companions having far more to do with the plot, being more integral to the story. - Branching story where choices matter and the plot can drastically change based on decisions made from the very beginning all the way to late game. - More varied and complex reputations, and a functional reputation system for them. - Actual tangible rewards and effects attached to the reputation system. - The combo system is really neat, maybe just gate it behind companion rep instead of letting weaker abilities be there from the beginning? - More "skills" like subterfuge, they serve a bigger point in game, tied to stats not some arbitrary skill point choice, can be trained, and get better with use. Of course this is all moot since Eternity 2 is probably well into development already and many of these things couldn't be changed now even if they wanted to.

Guys you don't really understand publishers. If Obsidian can prove their game is a guaranteed profit return (which I think it is safe to say an Eternity sequel probably will be) publishers will be fine with giving them free rein. As long as they stay on release schedule anyway. Publishers generally don't care about video games, they care about profits. They aren't going to tell you "no this game must be turn based" most of the time, because they don't care about your game or it's mechanics. That said, like in all walks of life some publishers are stupid. They want everyone to make their game more like Call of Duty or something. We are talking about Paradox though... they release stuff like Europa Universalis, Magicka, and Mount and Blade.... do you really think they are going to interfere with Obsidian's design to give it more mass appeal? If you do, well.... you're wrong, and there is no other way to put it. Look no further than Tyranny, no kickstarter, supported solely by Paradox, and it is a fine game that is basically just like Eternity only maybe a little better in some respects mechanically.

Turn Based is definitely more micromanagement because you are required to control every single action your characters take. There is no AI, you must do it all yourself, you don't have a choice. Regardless of how much control you could have in real time with pause there is still typically some AI most of the time, you aren't required to issue every single action, and you don't have to control every detail of movement either. If the combat in your turn based game feels sterile, lacks a feeling of situational awareness or an evolving battlefield... well... I hate to be a broken record but... Don't confuse the "system" being at fault when it's really "bad design choices". Wasteland 2 had crap combat for example in my opinion, because the turn based system felt tacked on, not like the combat was turn based because it needed to be. The fights were boring, there was no evolving battle, and you had to have little to no situational deployment or tactics. It was just a case of them doing what they knew, not doing what was best for the actual game. While I am at it people worried about Numenera having poor combat have tons of good reason to be worried. Like I said, if they really had a clue about what they wanted combat to be in the game they wouldn't have chosen it's core design based on a backer poll. Design by comity is almost always a mistake.

Most decent turn based games have "escape" abilities, or rules where if you get a certain distance from the enemy the encounter ends. It all comes down to what you want out of combat for your game. If you want combat to be fast, player skill based, only one character being controlled, and heavy on "action"? You need a real time system. If you want your combat to be complex, offer a large variety of abilities, maybe control more than one character, all without being purely about "tactics"? Maybe real time with pause is a good idea. If your goal is to make combat the most tactical, complex, multi unit, and strategy/planning oriented thing it can be? You will need it to be turn based. The problem most RPG's have is they don't think about it like that, and instead they simply say... run a retarded poll letting the players decide. Or just pick what they are most familiar with. When combat in a game just plain sucks it means the designers didn't properly plan what combat would or should be in their game. It isn't the combat systems fault, it is the fault of bad development choices.

Well, there's at least one player who prefers it to both pure real time and turn based (me) so don't be so sure it's a concession. Exactly. Pure real time in a isometric RPG where you are controlling multiple characters with dozens of abilities and no decent AI to speak of sucks. Even in DA Inquisition, which was made around the idea that your party had strong AI and did not need managing, still needed managing on higher difficulties in the major battles. I wouldn't even want to dream what playing Eternity would be like without the ability to pause. It is definitely it's own system and is not just a concession to try to please both groups.

Basically the same survey, I suspect they changed it because before you could not move sliders if you didn't want to. I bet if you didn't move them they came up as negative results or n/a's previously didn't they? Hohohohohohohoho Either way gave pretty close to the same answers I imagine. Still not particularly excited about a Pathfinder game because it is just more generic D&D world, but Pathfinder as a isometric RPG is certainly a better use of the license than a card game.

This applies to almost every company doesn't it? Logical criticism and buyer awareness are frowned upon and scorned in general as "hating" and "entitlement" rather than signs of a canny self interested consumer. It does, but not to the extent blizzard gets away with it. Activision for example is creatively bankrupt too.... but it isn't doesn't take them 5+ years to release the new call of duty.

Nah just blizzard sucks. They are creatively bankrupt and dead, all they do is steal other peoples ideas then push them into their own games. WoW only holds on because mmo players like playing with other people and don't want to "risk it", which is hilarious because WoW has far more dead servers than busy ones. Seriously, stop and look at blizzard as a company. When was the last time they did something original? How long had it been since they had done a new IP when they finally released overwatch? How long did it take them to make Diablo 3? Any other company would be getting shamed like hell, but they have brain dead fanboi in droves, so they get away with it.

Lol no prob. I am going to be an outlier here and tell you this though.... forget min maxing. Yes, it can be done in Eternity, done it before myself for testing/goofing around. It just isn't super critical in this game, and is no where near as large an impact as it was in say a D&D 3.0 or 3.5 based setting. As long as you don't make just outright crazy choices and keep things reasonably balanced you can beat this game with pretty much any class makeup. Challenge just comes down more to what gear you have, tactical choices you make, and how you use that gear/party abilities. That and the game is sadly plagued by the same issue as a lot of modern PC focused RPG's, it's front loaded. The game starts hard, but around the midpoint gets markedly easier due to access to good gear, additional levels, more powers, etc etc.

Yeah strange to see this much analysis on this. Common sense rules the day at the friendly arm, who cares what difficulty came when? You don't name a difficulty setting "normal" and not intend for that difficulty to be the standard "this is the game as intended" setting. If Hard were meant to be the standard "cannon" setting it wouldn't be called hard and it would be the setting the game picks by default.

I honestly found those questions strange because we knew none of those devs were even on the table to begin with. Maybe a couple of the smaller ones, but it doesn't take a genius to realize Paizo would either self release (mediocre idea at best), pass it to Paradox, or to Obsidian.