Karkarov

I disagree. They aren't mutually exclusive things and in my experience streamers are far more pandering than youtube people (except maybe whats his face who is worthless for the purposes of this conversation anyway). You can always run a forum, reply to viewers in comments, and so on with Youtube. Twitch is where it gets stupidly boring because you can't edit out that uninteresting busy work clip, or compensate for that internet bug you just had that caused your stream to crash. Meanwhile it isn't like any of this is a means to money or fame. For every TotalBuiscit there is a million or more people you have never heard of who have no viewership to speak of.

AngryJoe is all about RPG's and plays the PC plenty. Not only that but he regularly looks at kickstarter too. You could do a ton worse than throwing him some Eternity stuff.

Thanks for that. To give a fun comparison so far in the year of 2014.... a whopping seven whole games across all platforms have hit 90 or better and we are half way through the year. The kicker? Three of them are iOs games that likely don't have to meet anything resembling hard standards. Example... highest reviewed game of the year so far is VVVVVV, no I am not joking, on iOs it metacritics a insane 96. This is a game that already came out on PC and 3ds over a year ago. The best part? The 3ds and PC versions strangely metacritic in the 80's. Wonder the standards are a little lighter with those app game reviewers?

Just cause you liked a game doesn't mean it was a great game. None of the games you linked for the most part should have been 90+ when they came out, much less today. Again my whole point, which is still true, is saying Baldur's Gate 2 is the greatest RPG of all time based on Metacritic is a meaningless statement and proves nothing because the standards it faces are not the same standards games today face and the number of reviewers as well as their outlook is vastly different now than it was 14 years ago. I do like that you linked the score of Resident Evil 3 though since making fun of the bad controls and terrible voice acting from the early resident evils is something I find the internet enjoys quite a bit. By comparison we have Deadly Premonition. A game that came out much later, had the same sort of controls, and the same sort of whacked out voice acting as the original resident evil. Just a far better story and better graphics. You said the PS version of Resident Evil 3 got an 88? Deadly Premonition with the same control style and basic gameplay on the Xbox 360 (effectively 2 console gens later) metacritics a massive 68. If you asked me which game is better and which I would rather play today don't be shocked if I tell you I would rather play the 68. Also finding scores would help a lot if you look at something other than just pc games. Just saying consoles exist and have games too.

Right but an average game got an average score. I have seen review sites like Polygon (and others) take games that are solid good games where they have nothing but a few niggling complaints even the reviewer says "are minor" and give the game a 3/5 or a 6/10, both of which translate to 60-70 in Metacritic speak and are considered bad scores. Please remember publishers consider anything that metacritics less than 80 to be a "failed game". Not even joking. Look at Child of Light on Polygon for example. They have nothing legitimately bad to say. Their complaint ultimately is "combat is okay but could have been more complex and I wish it had loot/equipment and it isn't "memorable"". That's it. No bugs, the game is fun, the story is okay, graphics are great, sound was cool... but man the combat got a little boring in my 11 hour playthrough and it isn't super memorable so that I will think back to it in two years so bam 6.5/10. Really? Or GiantBombs Watch Dogs review where it ends saying they had fun with the game, it kept them entertained most of the time, and though all it's tricks were old tricks they still worked. Bit it also said, "...if you don't settle for anything less than the best, you'll probably be disappointed." final score? 3/5. Apparently being fun and liking a game is no longer grounds for a 80 or higher score, you have to be "the best" or maybe reinvent your genre. Bear in mind the same writer gave Grand Theft Auto V a 5/5. No offence, but the three character thing while cool didn't reinvent the genre either and GTAV still did all the same things GTAIV did just with better graphics and three characters.

You should not judge by Metacritic. In the past low score reviews were much rarer, and high scores were much more common. Gamers (and their reviewers) were also far less cynical and easier to please. Not only that but 10-12 years ago there were a lot less reviewers too. I am stunned BG2 somehow got to 30. Compare to say... Skyrim. Oh it only had 32 reviews on PC, true. Did you know it has another 89 review scores on the Xbox version plus another 16 who reviewed it on PS3? Simply put it is much much harder to get a high score today than in 2000. If BG2 release today it would have gotten no where near a 95. Case in point... the enhanced edition only scores a 78, and had 34 reviewers.

He still wanted to pork his own daughter, just saying.... That said Nilfgaard is the bad guy in the sense of the country itself, It isn't like the Northern Kings are all that nice either. Heck in my Witcher 2 playthrough I will carry into Witcher 3 let's just say Geralt wasn't quite as innocent of Kingslaying as he could have been...... >_>

Except that he was just working for someone else. As has always been the plot with the Witcher the real enemy is Nilfgaard, and as usual they are pretty much winning. I think this terribly worded but a good point. If Obsidian doesn't trust themselves to write a good romance without it boiling down to being there for playing "titillation" as you say... what makes anyone think PC driven sexual content in game won't boil down to the same? As I said I suspect any sexual content in the game will only be there for sake of immersion, such as a brothel being in a city, or because it makes narrative sense. I don't expect your actual player character to be able to engage in any sexual act of any kind to be honest. Just because there is a brothel (theoretically) in Defiance Bay doesn't mean you can actually ever go in it or partake of it's wares. Just because there is sexual content somewhere in the game doesn't mean the PC is ever an actual participant in it.

Awful lot of hot air over some off the cuff journalist comment that could literally mean nothing. There is no romance in game... so aside from a Brothel showing up or their being some relationships in game with implied sex (like Jaheira/Khalid being married and they actually acknowledge it in some way...) I don't see much room for sexual content. Maybe somewhere in the main story if it makes narrative sense like someone else already posted. We already know the "PC" wont be having any sex scenes though unless it is via that optional brothel, and if Obsidian leaves that out well... at least one backer won't miss it.

While I can't even guess at whether or not Obsidian will factor things in that deeply... I can say word of mouth from E3 seems to indicate faction/NPC reactivity in Eternity is really really up there. Additionally there is a ton of methods for effecting reputations and stuff as well, conversation system is rumored to be very robust for example.

I don't know there was this game I played a long time ago called D&D that seemed to handle scaling really well when the person running the game knew what they were doing. Computer wise BG2 was "okay" at it until you got near level cap then it went off the rails. It would have been fine if they had simply toned it down slightly for high levels. Meanwhile Stun I would appreciate it if someone who understands so little about the games he claims to master didn't fling insults. Example "lich always greater than vampire". Since when? Lich and Vampire are at their core just ability/racial templates. You can be a level 20 fighter/20 mage Vampire. You can be a level 15 mage Lich. Of the two which would you consider the more dangerous opponent? Thanks again for admitting you don't even understand the basic concept of what people are saying. You still don't get the difference between two very simple things.

Also just to throw this out there but how do you know those journalists who tweeted aren't excited to see Eternity? How do you know they didn't back it? I can tell you from my own knowledge that Angry Joe for example loves him some RPG's so I assure he will be excited to see it. Additionally he even discusses kickstarter and tries to drum up funds from his viewers for the projects he likes. Hell there is one space sim he personally gave so much too and helped promote to such an extent they actually made an in game character based on him as a means of thanks. Just remember most games journalists were gamers first. Meanwhile why would a company with a long track record and multiple solid releases change the way they do business when they know it works? The only real difference between kickstarter and publisher is with kickstarter money you are funding it yourself so you don't really have to answer to anyone else. You aren't going to change your process of how you make games, you just don't have a third party telling you what features have to be in and when you have to release.

Well I am glad TrueNuetral and Sharp One get it at least. Scaling can be done very effectively and work well, if effort is made to implement it the right way. Meanwhile Stun hate to bust it to you but again, this is still a non issue as they confirmed a long long time ago the "crit path" of the game definitely scales. The optional areas however do not. So there will be plenty of places you can go faceroll to your hearts content since that seems to be what you consider "fun". This is the most full of crap thing I have read all day. ROLE playing game man, ROLE. There are tons of people who play RPG's for the story, in fact I would be willing to bet there is markedly more of them than you and your munchkin ilk who would be better off in Diablo whether you want to play it or not. Meanwhile as I said before if there is not enough content to prepare you to reasonably beat the main story without it being a bend over and take it/pray to get lucky scenario then the Dev's failed at game design 101. Optional content is not optional if you have to do it or beating the game is near impossible, and 30% harder is a freaking lot harder. What you and Stun don't seem to "get" is that scaling is less for people who play crit path only as it is easy to design under the concept that all required content will be played and all optional skipped. Scaling is for you people who want to twink everything so you can get to the last boss and he isn't a total joke and a let down.

No I am just making a fast and easy explanation to explain the difference stun. Also it is a world of difference even if the scaling were based exclusively on level alone. For example in D&D what would be the harder fight? 5 trolls who are level 10 versus your level 10 party, or five trolls who are level 6 but woops they spend round 1 drinking potions of fire and acid resistance? Level scaling simply levels the mob. Encounter Scaling actually changes the basic design of the encounter into one that in principle is the same but could be wildly different in actual play. Meanwhile thanks TrueNeutral. It can easily be done off something other than level. You could assign hidden "power scores" to stats, levels, items, racial modifiers, just about anything, then base the fight on the "power score" of the party. Meaning that the game could easily take into account that a level 5 fighter using an artifact sword is more of a threat than a level 5 fighter using a +2 longsword. It just comes down to the developers, their priorities, and how far they are willing to go down the rabbit hole to make scaling effective and work well. Which by the way, again, "Scaling" in general is not Level Scaling. Level Scaling is again where the games enemies level to match your level. It is pretty prevalent because it is the easiest version of "Scaling" to implement, but as many have noticed it doesn't really work well.

I didn't stated the reason for BG to be so easy is lack of LEVEL scaling, but lack of scaling. And Level scaling is only one of the posibilities. What's the difference? Basically this. Level Scaling means the enemy scales directly based on level. Such as an encounter is designed for a level 5 party but you get there at level 8. Since you outlevel the original design all the enemies are simply leveled 2-3 times to meet your level range. Sometimes (though rarely) this means enemies might also become a new "varient". Like what was originally just a Fire Imp for example is now a full on Fire Elemental. Encounter scaling is where the encounter is changed to meet the challenge of the party in dynamic ways. For example... it might be an encounter originally designed for level 5 where you arrive at level 8 with your party. The enemies don't level, they are still level 5. But now there might be 2-3 more of them, or instead of normal arrows they might have fire arrows, or maybe there is now a trap that wouldn't have been there before that your party might fall into. The level or "challenge" of the enemies on a pure numbers basis didn't change but the encounter changed in a way that made it more challenging. or TLDR version Level Scaling = The enemy was changed to become stronger or weaker based on the strength of the party. An encounter against three enemies will always be an encounter against three enemies. Encounter Scaling = Aspects of the encounter are added or removed based on the strength of the party. An encounter against three enemies might not always be an encounter against just three enemies.

You guys do realize that in a "D&D Esque" system (which they seem to be trying to emulate) levels can have very little to do with your actual power right? Your equipment can have a far greater impact than the +5 hp you got and 1 more magic missile cast. There may be a level cap but they people who do all the optional content will still in general have far superior items and be noticeably stronger than those who are at level cap but were not completionists. Yes, there are. In fact there are lots of them especially in RPG's. Go figure but some people play RPG's for the story not the BS power fantasy Mony Haul nonsense. If they don't find the optional content to be worth the time investment and it feels like a slog they very much will only do the main story. Also there are people who are simply "checkboxers" whose only goal is to simply beat the game. They are probably just going to run through it as fast as possible and purposefully avoid side content. Lastly no, they are people and gamers too and deserve to be considered in design decisions and shouldn't be left with an unwinnable game just because they don't want to pound away on "supposedly" optional content. Also while we are at it, people.... look up the meaning of the word optional. If you don't want the game to be completable by people who don't do optional content than that content clearly was not optional at all. No giving the choice between doing sidequests in area A or B does not mean they are optional, you still had to do one or the other no matter what. Also learn more definitions. Encounter Scaling and Level Scaling are not the same thing. This thread is about Encounter Scaling, not the thing you guys keep bitching about.

Yeah that's my point. The way the map is laid out it looks like two decent size cities and a couple small villages that would take a day, maybe two to travel across. It doesn't look like a "country" or a "region". It looks more like one or two counties. I am sure as we get closer to release the map will become more fleshed out and start considering some of that "scale" it has crossed out.

Yeah I have seen this pic before and it is sort of terrible but it makes the game look like it will be 2 small towns, 2 big towns, and a bunch of wilderness with like maybe 2-3 actual non town dungeons. In effect it looks really really tiny. Hoping for something a little more "in between".

I am not sure how legit that map will be long term. We need to wait for closer to release when they will release a map that is a little more indicative of the actual games size.

Actually I read all that to mean that "Watcher" is just a title given to people with a specific skill set or people whose lives contain certain circumstances maybe? In other words there is no individual Watcher, but a group of various people who are Watchers. Your character in the game very clearly is one, as Obsidian has already said.

That's odd cause I know for a fact I have seen developer posts on this forum stating the main story would scale based on your level so it was completable even if you only do the main story. Unless they make the really weird decision of only making things scale down and not up I am pretty sure we already have "Crit Path Scaling". If someone is a completionist and does absolutely everything they can, has all the best gear, is max level with all characters, and has all the best abilites.... Well you are probably going to beat the game handily regardless of how the final encounters scale. If you don't want the final battle to be easy try not doing absolutely everything possible before you get there I guess. i mean the reward for doing all that work is sort of being a bad ass. Or at least that is a good chunk of it.

I know. . Sorry, the smirking-with-shades emoticon is my "I'm not being serious here" indicator, FYI. Obviously it was after Jason Statham got through with it. He catalyzes all types of Earth-matter into damage. Oh come now, damage can definitely be spilled out into a big pool. Like burning hot magma.... (Dr. Evil Voice) huehuehuehuehue

In his defense Bryy the little ninja emoticon leads me to believe he was just being sarcastic. That and the G-String comment.

Sounds like Mr. Junta has hit the nail on the head. Let's not forget, Wasteland 2 is being made my a company that has made like .... one other game in the last decade? Obsidian is not some indy dev or new arrival to the scene who hasn't made a good game in 20 years. They are experienced, they had a clear vision, management is not off in left field playing tiddly winks, there is no third party Obsidian choose their own deadline, and they know what they are doing. That is a pretty powerful combination for meeting your games release projections. In other news they have never been one to release gameplay video's early. I never saw a gameplay vid of South Park Stick of Truth for example until it was about 3 months away from release. I am not sure there even was one for Alpha Protocol before release itself.

Could Eternity spin off into an MMO? Sure. Will it happen? Probably not. First it needs more games to establish itself. Second Obsidian is not a big enough company to run an MMO by themselves. Third, they don't have enough experience at making MMO's. Single player RPG's are what they do best, let them focus on their strengths at least for the foreseeable future.