Karkarov

Okay let's make something clear. The game won't be "broken". If it were broken no one could beat it because the mechanics would be broken and therefore unplayable. People need to stop using that word to describe poor design, bad design is not "broken" it still works it was just designed badly. That said, again, in a game that has been implicitly stated to be designed around the use of a party and solo play (supposedly) not considered in the design... then yes I would say the design is poor if it can be completed solo. If the whole idea was using a party and come to find out you don't need one at all then something somewhere in your implementation must have failed on a fundamental level. Either that or you were considering solo play the whole time and you did want it to be possible you just didn't want to outright state that for some reason. The achievement list will speak volumes. If there is an achievement for completing the game solo then we will know despite whatever has been said to this point solo play has been considered and somewhere in there they purposefully made sure it was possible to clear the game alone.

Thanks for the support there Brainmuncher. I will clarify to the anal retentive degree. You are designing a game, your game is designed around the idea of a party of characters being used by the player to complete it. Your combat, encounters, mechanics, levels, all of it is designed around the idea that the player has more than one character at his beck and call. It is done this way from the ground up. So imagine that someone comes along with only one character and beats the whole thing. What does that say about your design? Remember we are supposed to be designing a game you need a party to play. So if someone can beat it with no party at all when it was designed to be expecting a party that may indicate there is a weakness in the design doesn't it? Maybe it is too easy, or maybe there are large exploits that can be abused, maybe the class they use is OP as hell? All of which I consider to be design flaws. Is my point and opinion crystal clear now? I sure hope so cause I am not posting about it again.

You guys mistake is your kept reading Dragonlance books past the original series.

Well I will definitely bring my man Garrus be..... oh wrong game.... Like many others I will build my first party using the games NPC's so I get the most out of the lore/story stuff. The question is which NPC's since I haven't decided what type of character I want to play yet personality wise. I never went "evil" in BG for various reasons so I may end up trying a character of a less reputable bent. I guess we also need to wait and see on how well NPC's will be willing to work with each other too. Hopefully we won't end up with another Viconia situation where like half the games cast gets shelved long term just to use one character.

I think the world is a little bigger than that to be honest, I imagine the Vallian rebublics being further from defiance bay etc etc. But it may just be me. I am definitely also looking forward to more details about character creation and just how many options we will actually get. Yes the characters will be small on screen but we can still get a serious about of graphical fidelity in games these days and you can pick out details even on small characters. Like hair style/color, skin color, body shape, etc etc.

Oh I know, that is why I said it will take some getting used to. Why would it bother you that someone else is playing the game solo? Is it important to those people that you don't find it fun or don't get it? You come of sounding like, "Well I don't find it fun, so it shouldn't be possible", that is akin to those people that rage at others for cheating in a single player game. .... I said "I never got why people even tried", not "it bothers me that they do this". You can play the game any way you want, I don't care. Doesn't make my opinion any more or less valid or change the fact that I see no point in playing solo in a game designed for parties.

Nothing confuses me, I just think it isn't needed. Well it is a little late in the game for that, you will get used to it. Personally I hope it turns out to be next to impossible to solo the game. I never got why people even tried. The game isn't more fun that way, the story is no different, etc etc. So if it comes about that soloing the game is actually something that can't be done I will be perfectly happy with it. Even if it is doable and there are big achievements with it that let me brag to my friends and flount my gamer cred .... I still won't even bother trying it. It is a party based RPG, why would I ever want to play it without the depth of an actual party and the fun that adds to the combat and story?

Agreed. Someone says "he bumped into me and didn't apologize. I don't think that's right. HE SHOULD DIE!" And you respond with "Whoa whoa, yeah, he probably should apologize to you, you're right. But, I dunno if his not-doing that warrants death", and somehow, the hostility just gets re-directed at you. As if simply letting it die down like a fire would somehow harm the discussion. 8P WHAT YOU SAY?!?!?!?!? Where you get off bro? Tryin to preach at us! I think you need to die Lephys! Imma get my gat and be right back to ice you foo!

First off in response to the money thing I deleted for the sake of having a non massive quote block... Common sense ruled the day at the Friendly Arm Inn and it certainly rules the day in business. There would be absolutely no point in making Eternity if they did not intend for it to be profitable, and they have already stated they want to turn this into a new IP with sequels. You can't do that if your game makes no money. It has even been said they may go to an actual publisher next time if this first entry does well enough, and who can blame them? Yes there are drawbacks to publishers, but they also have a metric ton of advantages too. Now as for conversations and changes? Very few actually. I imagine the vast majority of their design has been the result of internal playtesting and their own design goals/creative vision. The only thing that I know for a FACT backers did have an immediate heavy impact on was the "Repair System". The dislike that one thing got was so overwhelming (still don't know why) and despised by the backers it wasn't even maybe 2 weeks from it's announcement they decided to take it out. Make no mistake Obsidian listens to the backers, but understand it is Obsidian's game and they are the veteran game makers with the money and vision. In the end it will be, and should be, a game made mostly by their creative direction not ours. EDIT: Also yes, Baldur's Gate did sell millions of copies. Over the course of years, if not over a decade. They want to be making Eternity 2 within 3 years I imagine, not 5, not 10. They don't have a decade to wait.

Question 1.... That is the backer misinterpretation. Obsidian never promised BG3, they never promised to "make a new IE game". They said they wanted to make a isometric party based tactical RPG inspired by the IE games. So their obligation is simple. They have to make a top down isometric party based tactical RPG that has similarities to the IE games, while ideally also making the game fun and something the backers will like. That is the be all end all of their obligation. They are not obligated to include hard counters, gnomes, Faerun, the magic missile spell, the Nameless One, or Jon Irenicus. They are not obligated to make BG3, IWD3, PS:T 2, or NWN3. Question 2.... Yes and no. Most of the time more to the yes side. Again with the gnomes example.... gnomes are not a "core" component of the BG series. They exist sure, but you could get through the whole series and never have one in your party. So if someone complained about there being no gnomes is it legitimate? Yes in the sense that you might expect them since they were in the other games.... but also no because they were not promised and in no way are a "core" component of what makes the IE games. Many of the complaints become invalid because they come down to D&D nonsense. Eternity was never ever going to have the D&D license. Which is why I spent many many a post in the early days of these forums encouraging people to not try to compare this to D&D because long term they will only be loosely similar. Most people ignored me and paid me no head. It is no surprise that a large chunk of those people are now the ones complaining loudest about many of the reveals as we get closer to release. So Obsidian never lied or was shady about this being a D&D based game. Since we should have all known that wasn't on the table the vast majority of the "changes" aren't really shocking at all because if you thought about it you would have known they wouldn't be the same. In the end Obsidian should listen to the backers, but the backers also need to understand... You aren't a stock holder, Obsidian can, and should, keep their vision of the game first and foremost. Also while on this forum the IE games are huge and deviating in general is considered bad I am going to say it, the "fans of the IE games" don't represent enough profit to keep this IP afloat and they need to attract more than just old players.

Just to throw this out there but cut content in most mediums was worthy of the cut. Go watch 90% of movies that released with "deleted scenes". You know why they deleted the scene when you see it cause most of the time it sucked, made no sense, or just didn't fit at all with the rest of the movie. I imagine in games it is the same thing. Except in a game the sucky scene that doesn't jive with the rest of the movie doesn't last 5 minutes it lasts an hour maybe two, and it can sour a otherwise great experience. Mass Effect 3 ending anyone? Not to mention budget/time constraints like others said. Sometimes perfecting a area or bit of gameplay simply costs more money, time, or both than it is worth.

So you are upset a bunch of humanoid races with human type proportions and bodies have similar head proportions.... you know... like real humans????

It actually worked really well in Might and Magic Legacy aka MMX. At least until late game when you started getting inns that let you carry like 15+ camp supplies. However it sounds like they already have a handle on that so I think it will play out nicely. It gives you the ability to recover, but keeps you limited enough so that you know you can't just throw caution to the wind.

One word. Awesome. I am thoroughly happy to see this post and hear that Obsidian is going with a forward thinking UI that utilizes modern design without losing functionality while also minimizing lost screen real estate. Especially since it will be mostly modular and allow for those who want those art panels to have them. Excellent news, seriously no real words for how excited I am to see that post.

Said it before, will again, modern UI design has easy answers for all these questions. Assuming they want to go minimalist first off there could just be keys mapped to the action bar and if you know the keys you just hit the relevant one then target the skill. You could have a little + button and you click and pop the bar shows up. Yes ui elements should be different when multiple people are selected versus single characters and yes this is very doable. So it could be the action bar is hidden simply because you don't have one character picked. Also you guys are not "advocates for change" you are "advocates for not changing". You want BG2 UI, I think BG2 UI sucks (cause it does) and we need to move forward. I still see no reason to believe this is a final UI and anything other than a testing only thing. The MMO Wildstar still plans 1 more UI update before their launch in a couple months and they just now put out their "almost ready for launch" UI 2 weeks ago. They have all the time in the world to make tons of UI changes.

The question, with regards to game UI design, should then what are the benefits of orienting certain UI elements (portraits) vertically vs horizontally. Your assertion is that horizontal, unified UI orientation is best because it leads to the greatest economy of mouse movement. ..... I think the bold part covers it.

And none of that research has anything to do with video games or video game UI design. Again, I don't care about mouse clicks or movements. Action will be on center screen, not the top left corner. You need to quickly see party status, action bars, maybe even a combat log at a glance. You can't "glance" to the top left or top right corner of your screen without looking away from the center of it. You want the important elements placed in such a way that you can still see them without having to "look away". Assuming for a minute god descends and demands the party window has to be in a corner.... it is still better in the bottom left or bottom right corner simply because it unifies the UI and keeps it organized on one "row". Lastly a video game is not a book. You aren't going to play a video game the same way you read a book. They just aren't even similar.

Viable? What does that even mean? In any event, No way. No Way, with a capital N. I most definitely will *not* accept PoE having combat equal to DA:O. Not when Obsidian has all the inherent advantages on its side to make PoE's combat at least 5 times as good. ( It's a PC exclusive, which means it doesn't have to adhere to console limitations; It's an Isometric Top down view game, which means better natural tactical battlefield play; It has 11 diverse classes, which means more combat party variety; And it has Tim Cain, one of the elite industry masters at designing great combat mechanics) If after all of this they still give us something equal to DA:O, then they will deserve whatever shame and scorn that gets hurled their way. Viable means it would have potential for fun, be bug free, be reasonably well balanced/playable, and offer some strategic depth even if not a ton? Also for a guy who thinks so little of DA:O's combat apparently you sure have an odd avatar choice.

There is nothing wrong with that style of game. It can be fun and easy to pick up and play. That said, no, Amalaur is not a particularly deep combat system. Will Eternity have better combat that Dragon Age: Origins though? No idea. It certainly will be a perfectly viable game even if it is only equal to DA:O though.

Just as a side bar there.... Divitity Original Sin was coming out with or without Kickstarter. They went to Kickstart purely for additional funding, the game was already well under progress and many of the games resources already existed. It wasn't like Shadowrun/Eternity/or Torment in that those games were nothing but an idea and concept art.

You know so little about good UI it is painful reading your posts. You should check out the Farcry 2/3 UI. If immersion is your thing those games have the best UI ever made. Want to look at a map of the area? Your character literally pulls out a map and unfolds it and you look at the map. Want to know where you are going in that jeep? You look at the GPS right there on the dash. Reloads? You either do it manually or it auto reloads when you run out of ammo, no bullet counter at all. Want to know time of day? You look at your watch. Etc etc.

Yeah pretty much. I don't think you game over if the MC just goes unconscious though. At least I sure hope not.

No I am actually proving your point is bad. Again every game that is modern and does this also does it in a way you don't like. No one left aligns their UI, nobody. The only people who put crap at the top left are as I said RTS games that need a metric ton of UI, and games with companion or party HP and they are put there specifically to be out of the way so they don't get in the way of the action which is center screen. I am basically saying if you consider your party window to be trivial and unimportant (I sure hope no one does) then the top left corner is where you want it. If you actually think it matters (I do) you want it on the bottom somewhere nearby the action bars where it is unlikely to block the view of anything important but also nearby other frequently used UI elements so you can get used to getting a picture of all important ui info in one glance.... Having to look to the top left for party stats, bottom middle for action bars, and then bottom right for the chat log is an inefficient/terrible design choice.

I am pretty sure there is no percentage roll in this game. Per the other thread if you have "death" on and you die then well... you dead. There is no raising in game per the devs themselves so if you play with death on and a character dies you either reload or find a new party member.

Pretty sure they said the maimed thing was only like the easy settings and normal+ would be permanent death.