Elerond

It can't, and they wouldn't do it even if it could, because it would be a waste of resources. We're not talking about sword swings, or death, or anything so common. We're talking about an animation that will only ever be seen after every single one of the following conditions are met: 1) There is a chanter. 2) that chanter has the skeleton summoning chant, and employs it. 3) the skeleton survives for the duration of the spell. This is not skyrim. The devs here do not have 5 years and $100 million in funding to spend on unique animations that most players will never see. Chanter's have multiple summoning spells, not just skeletons and all summonings are until end of combat or dead (previously they were until dead or rest) . Making summons disappear with fading cloud of mist/smoke effect is not unique animation, but quite generic animation that should be quite easy to scale to size of summoning. Would such effects be waste of resources is purely question of preferences, but as general rule visual feedback is not waste of resources, but also it is not usually highest priority for resources either.

If there need to be any effect/animation when summons disappear, I would say that but cloud of disappearing mist or smoke where summons are to show that soul power that manifested summons has become part of cycle yet again. But I am not sure that even such simple animation can be added in this point of time, but maybe content patch or expansion could add such if you feel to give it a try.

If you are backer you can buy it from here http://eternity.obsidian.net/backer/addons Otherwise you need somebody else (who is a backer) to buy it for you, because I think that in this point of time you can't anymore become backer

I had to ask about that and the reply I got was "Very unlikely" Maybe the head guys would be willing to release them at a higher resolution but not the original size? Something like 1200x1885 at 72ppi? I wonder if Collector's Book has any higher resolution portrait art in it.

PoE's backer beta and final game are separate steam products, that use different product keys, so I don't see that Obsidian will in this point give keys for beta for those who didn't bought it, as in my understanding they will delete beta from steam when they release the full game.

I can't pay directly via Kickstarter. They switched to some new system which doesn't take Discover (which is what I used to pay via Amazon) at all and my VISA is also declined (it has never failed me anywhere else before). I don't understand why they can't use a normal payment system. I have same problem and I have my prejudices against their new service provider. But this change in their service means that I will not fund anymore projects via KS at least until their service again accepts my credit cards.

Just because there are risks doesn't mean developer isn't accountable when he fails. But when we do that selectively, then it does actually little good and is just picking those who are already down. And singling single individual over companies where he work is not actually holding developer responsible for failure as accountable, but pouring all the fault to single individual that can't in any way be only person responsible for the failure (which in this case is even under question is there such failure that anybody should be held responsible for it) And I would say that calling somebody pathological liar (and making it a question don't make it any less accusation) is not keeping them accountable to anything it is just statement that you think that they lie constantly. And also when you start interview with such accusation you make your interviewee become defensive and starting to justify and explaining everything, which usually leads that you get them to say non-true statements , as they really don't actually have time to reflect what and when they have done things (this don't mean that Molyneux don't do such things even when he is well prepared, but such cheap yellow press tactics probably will not help, and generally yellow press tactics aren't good journalism ever, or good way to held anybody accountable to anything, which we see even this case as Molyneux comes out more as wronged party than person whose actions were under question). And when editorial board of publication don't remember that they should give fuller picture of things, instead of by editing in only points where interviewee has exaggerate/given false statements, like mentioning fact that found KS project game, from developer with history of over promising and under delivering, which over promised and under delivered as excellent example of good KS project game. And there is also question who should held Molyneux accountable if he fails to deliver his promises for his investors/funders/backers, is it said backers or press or both? I as projects backer don't like very much how interviewer in said interview tries to represent me as reason why they ask the question that they ask, that is again just bull**** yellow press tactic where interviewer tries to get authority over interviewee by presenting themself as representative of people that haven't anyway gave them such authority. I fully believe that people should be held accountable on their actions, this includes developers, journalists and people that invest/fund/back projects/products/etc. that have risk to fail and that accountably should be delivered equally and not by picking easy targets to get name for themself as though person.

Any random idiot can be a "visionary". Coming up with ideas for cool games is easy. Ideas are dirt cheap. What is not easy is actually making those games a reality. And that's what separates a true visionary from a random idiot. Yes, that interview was harsh. But you can hardly say that it was undeserved. He took peoples money and promised a certain product in return. That's a big, big responsibility that shouldn't be taket lightly at all. So why should RPS or anyone else give him a pass? Especially when he has a history with failed promises. He didn't took people's money, he presented his idea for game and prototype of that game and asked if people are interested to give them fund to make that prototype to something like his idea, which was in short create something new in god game genre. So it is his responsibility to try his best to realize his promises, but it should noted that people who funded his project are responsible for their money and risk that they took when they decided to invest in his project, as people should always remember that there is risk of failure in such projects, and if you didn't take those risk in consideration when you made your decision to fund the game then fault is wholly in your shoulders not anybody else's. P.S. Visionary and executor of visions rarely are same people, which is why most projects have different people in designer posts and developer posts. P.P.S. It should remember that Molyneux has not yet failed permanently anything else in Godus project than ability to deliver finished project in promised time, which has been more norm than exception in gaming KS projects. P.P.P.S. It should also noted that interview was done by magazine that awarded another KS project that had most of same failures than what Molyneux Godus project has had as excellent example of good KS project, which in my eyes make that interview look much more personal attack than anything resembling serious journalism.

1. I would point out that there is no mention of contingency plan in Project Eternity's KS pitch did Obsidian lie to you? I would point out that Obsidian also took publisher partner during development of PoE should you be mad for them for doing so? I would also point out that they did have contingency plan which didn't involved KS backers moneys, but for some reason that plan is seen as bad thing as it involved deal with publisher which for some reason is seen as betrayal towards their backers, but because of that contingency plan they are still working to finalize Godus even though they run out KS money long time ago. Would it had been better if they had asked more money from KS backers instead? 2. Look point one. 3. I don't think that his math such he was answering question that you got £100k more than you asked and he was saying that is not true as even though KS fundraising did go £100k over the target they didn't actually get £100k additional funds to do the game and he explains why. 4. Unseen cost are unpredictable but they are so common in software projects that it is often wise to prepare for them and he admits that he was too naive and optimistic and too fearful towards possibility that their fundraiser would fail to ask money towards such occurrence and he also says that he don't know how people that fund KS projects would react towards people that ask more money than they have calculated that they need because they think that they may screw up somewhere and need more money. 5. If you look their KS video then you know that they addressed that point very much, as whole video is build around that point. 6. He also says that they asked as much money as they predicted that they need to complete the game in time frame that they predicted that it will took which was based on their first prototype which they showed in their KS pitch. 7. He is correct that lot of people do it and it is normal practice in KS, for example Obsidian, inXile, and Double Fine are also guilty in same things as he. Molyneux is not innocent actor (like for example his failure with that Curiosity winner), but he gets much harsher treatment than others whose kickstaters don't match perfectly their pitch. Like for example Divinity: Original Sin from Larian Studios (which backer I am also and I don't personally have any problems with how they handled their project) was late and it don't have all features that were promised in their KS pitch (one stretch goal was too difficult to them to do) and Rock Paper Shotgun named that product as best from Kickstater in 2014, and in any of their interviews of Sven they didn't ask is he liar or anything like that. PS. If one don't ask money for contingency when they ask you to fund something then you should always assume that there is no plan in case that something goes awry and do you decision to fund project from that basis or ask if there is one, and make your decision basing on answer (or non-answer) that you get.

I work as a programmer, and I have a Master's in Computer Science. As for why you don't change the word. on the fly wouldn't work: a) There can be overlap with 'innocent' words: http://bit.ly/1vvwjV7 (it is bitly'ed because the language filter on this site would mess it up, appropriately enough). And no, I don't think regexes are the solution. b) The naive approach does not change the tone of the conversation, which could still be so suggestive that the word can be puzzled out. c) It would still have to be tested and debugged. d) If any words slipped through there would be an uproar. But again, it does not matter because it is a M rated game. I'm not sure that there would be that much of a problem for a straight up text-replace, I bet I could do english in an hour, just by flagging false positives as the search went along. But I think you're right about the localization problems, I could maybe do french:) ... it's probably best to let the community provide suitably censored versions of the game, seeing that Obsidian is only delivering as promised. Given what Sensuki has said about the strings for the game being easily available, I'll probably do the english swears. If the audio is also easily available, that could also be dubbed over, though the trick will be finding the audio. I wonder if they have some correlation between audio files and strings, finding the audio swears might need to be crowdsourced . I actually care less about that, because I can't stand waiting for a voice-over to finish saying the text that I finished reading 10-20 seconds ago and usually disable voice audio, but I'd be happy to put in some community service if there's demand. We'll call it "prudemod", or "thinkofthechildrenmod". Accessing strings and audio files is easy and there is no problems in changing them, but I am not sure that you could check false positives in hour as there is quite lot of those files that you would need to go through (at least several hundred, as beta has over fifty conversation files plus other text files, there is file for every character).

I would say that those words are used because it is often hard to describe why such things like weighty gold makes game better, as it usually comes down to feeling that visual and mechanical representation in the game gives to player. It is very similar to aesthetics, that you have gut feeling what you prefer and what you despise, but when you start to think why you have such feelings and what are the specific points that you like and don't like and how they could be replicated and why replicating them would make you like product more, we come in very difficult territory where most of the people don't know even basic directions let alone have ability direct other people.

So, he didn't want to ask for the full budget because people might not give him the money if they were making an informed decision. Cool. And it repeats like that several times. John Walker is more than a little harsh and somewhat petty in the rest of the interview, but the fundamental problem that sparked the whole interview is there. Molyneux knowingly misled people about the cost of developing a game because he wanted to take their money. That's beyond unethical, and bordering on fraudulent. I'm glad he's being called to task even if I am a bit squeamish about the form. Also, Project Eternity looks great. Yay Obsidian! And its worth pointing out that Obsidian has a pretty small crew on PE too with no multiplayer or middleware, and their initial request was two and a fifth times what Godus asked for. You left from part where he says that sum that they asked would had been enough if their estimate for how long game takes to finish would had been correct and that he didn't think that people would give money for 100% contingency which would been three time more than they asked to make sure that unpredicted complications don't cause problems for the project. I would also point out that when they realized that they estimates were wrong they sold part of their rights for the game so that they could finish the game in such fashion that it satisfactory for the backers. So in their they took also risk in amount that they asked in KS and that risk didn't pay out, but instead they lost some control over their IP. So it wasn't misleading backers, but instead asking money only for most positive out come scenario (which is something that most of the KS project do) and when things didn't go according to that scenario they seek extra funding by selling parts of their IP rights (which is their right and normal and sensible business thing to do). Their deal wasn't necessary best, as they sold mobile rights for publisher for more money than they got from KS, which pressured them to finish mobile version (which was part of original vision in KS) of the game first. I would also point out that they mention in risk segment of KS pitch that they are trying to do something new and create new technology and they will try make game to be so that backers like it. Which all are factor that should ring alarm bell in backers mind that project may not go as smoothly as planned. For disclosure, I am backer of Godus and I don't think that Molyneux or any other people in 22cans mislead or lied to me anyway. I would actually say that Godus has been one of the best KS projects that I have given money, as it has delivered beta version that I have liked to play (even if it is buggy and misses promised features and one can easily see that it is unfinished and how it would be better with full set of features and balance passes that remove impacts from features that are meant to for free-to-play mobile version) and it has given one of the best inside looks in game development (especially because its original plan was miscalculated and they decided to rework key features because backers didn't like how they felt) . It should also mentioned that I gave project only £20, so my monetary ties towards project aren't that big, although I don't tress much even over projects that are similarly late and which I gave hundreds/thousands of dollars.

In companies where I have worked and work in software development only 10%-20% of visioned features ever get to be realized, most common reason are they are low priority and don't fit budget and time frame, they need technology that we don't have in the project, they don't fit in goals of the project or purpose of final product. Even though game development is quite different from software development that I do, I would think that number of unrealized features is in somewhat same percentage. I would also say that I think that KS project for software would be much more difficult than your typical project with client, as you can't just call meeting and go through features from original pitch/plan that you have come to feel not fitting in final product or that they can't be realized in given budget or timeline.

Idea for expansion that could work as some sort spell selection method is to give priest and druid classes modal abilities that limit which spells they are able to cast but buff those spells that they are able to cast, which would give more variations how those classes play and how one builds them and I do think that it could fit with lore of the world and not being too difficult to implement and balance.

Building a Blue Wizard (illusion and debuffing spells) isn't a good build either, but PoE allows me to build such a Wizard. It doesn't allow me to build, or attempt to build, a self-buffing melee Spiritshifter. It allows me to use a Generalist Druid and then never use him for anything other than Spiritshifting and self-buffing. He'll still be a Generalist Druid. Wizards are able to get all their spells during the game by learning them from scrolls and using other grimoires, in my understanding there is even such spells that they can't get during level up. So building specialist wizards is more like playing druid that don't use certain spells in their repertory.

This question comes in my opinion to class differentiation and balance. There is two top tier archetypes in PoE for spell casters, those who have per rest spells and those who have regenerable resource that they use to cast spells In first category there are three classes; druid, priest and wizard. In second category there are two classes chanter and cipher Wizard class in PoE has largest range of spells which they can get, but they are limited by their grimoire and that they can only select limited number of spells during level up, but they also have ability change grimoire which they use which gives them ability to learn new spell outside leveling, which is ability that any other class in PoE don't have. Priest and Druid classes get all their spells during level up, but their range of spells is more limited than what wizard class. Priest and druid classes are differentiated from each other by their different spell selections and additional abilities. Cipher class uses focus resource, which they get by doing damage, to cast spells which they select during leveling. Chanter class selects chants and invocations during leveling, chants are passive modal abilities that over time increase chanter's chant counter which allows them to use their invocations. So if you would limit number of spells that Priest and Druid classes get during level up without making their spells more powerful you would make them weaker compared to other spell casting classes, as they don't have grimoire mechanic like wizards which would give them ability to have access to wider range of spells and they don't have similar abilities to get spell casting resources back like Cipher and Chanter classes. Although there is of course option to give Druid and Priest classes more per encounter spells instead of per rest, but even then their spell selections would need changes as some of their spells are too situational to pick over more generic de/buff or damage spells.

That is normal in game development process, but also it is normal that people, who usually don't actually know anything about developing game or have fleeting knowledge, but who still gave their money towards game (for monetary/gametary/ect. returns) demand that features that were promised in original concept/pitch should be in game or that game should have features x and y that they think are good. Which is reason why proven concepts control gaming industry, as they are safer option for both sides where visionary projects that try to create something new a risk for both sides, as they are difficult to pitch accurately, they nearly always promise more than they can deliver and people have only elusive idea what game is about and how it plays and those ideas in peoples head are often in conflict with ideas that other people in the project have about the game, which leads to higher dissatisfaction and harsher feedback. People say often say that they want to see innovation, but that is mentality that seems to often disappear as soon as their money is involved in making of a game.

From 36 projects that I have backed in kickstarter only 2 are actually delivered everything that they promised in time frame they promised and it is not much more that have delivered everything they have promised even in extended time frame. From game project that I have backed Wasteland 2: over year late and didn't deliver everything that it promised, delivered. Divinity: Original Sin: over half year late and didn't deliver some features that were promised in stretch goals, delivered. TAKEDOWN: Year late and didn't deliver lot of features that were promised, delivered. Jane Jensen's Moebius: Nearly year late, but arguably has all the promised features Project Giana: Delivered in time and with all promised features plus extras that weren't promised. Planetary Annihilation: Over year late and misses promised features, delivered. Project Eternity: Will be soon year late, not yet delivered, has playable beta that is constantly updated. Broken Sword - the Serpent's Curse Adventure: Over year late and some rewards are still not delivered Sword of Fargoal 2: Classic Dungeon-Crawler Adventure: Soon two year late, not yet delivered, there is high assumption that some of the promised features will not be in the final version Hero-U: Rogue to Redemption: Year and half late, not yet delivered, there has been concept change on what were promised in KS campaign Project GODUS: Year and half late, not yet delivered to all promised versions, some promised versions and features probably will not get done. Has playable beta, which has been constantly updated. Elite: Dangerous: Half year late, misses promised key features, delivered. Dreamfall Chapters: The Longest Journey: First chapter of the game come before set time frame, but game was divided to several chapters from which only first has delivered to date. Days of Dawn: Two years late, not yet delivered, Has playable alpha like version. Torment: Tides of Numenera: Now two months late, not yet delivered So I would say that Peter Molyneux gets harsher treatment than other Kickstarters (including those that come from other big names in industry), because of his reputation to promise more than he is able to deliver. And I find it quite interesting that any of these articles about how Godus is late don't mention highlight that fact that Godus got delayed majorly because of that many backers didn't like how some features were implemented and 22cans stopped to developing new features until they got those features fixed by doing several overhauls on them. So they probably could already have delivered game with features they promised, but opted instead to try deliver game that their backers like even though they need to use their own money on it.

It is just one of the things in game where "fun"* overcomes simulation in gameplay. * quotation marks because of fun begin too subjective matter not to use them

In steam you can select which games can accessed by everybody and which need password by using family options, which ables you to let your children to play those games that you find to be appropriate for them in your library and prevent them playing those that you think that they shouldn't play.

http://instagram.com/p/zClXW6px-j/ Maybe there is more behind in the story than we know

Currently you can't buy game in physical form, but if Paradox decides to sell physical copies I would guess that they will be similar to those physical copies that backers get, which are drm free and have installer that is independent of any digital distribution service. But I can't say anything for sure.

Everybody don't have good internet connection or even possibility to access one.

People wanted to get XP from exploration, so now they give you xp every time you find new place. People wanted to get XP from combat especially when fighting against critters that aren't tied to any quest, but they didn't want to implement per kill xp (for various reasons which you can find from these forums if you are interested), so they now give you xp every time you get new information about said critters in your bestiary, which you currently get from killing critters to certain point. People wanted to get XP from lock picking and defusing traps, so now you get xp from doing those things.