Elerond

(Bi-)Polar bear

Staying after your shift is over to do a better job is not an unheard of thing in this world (and yes I've personally done just that). Maybe you don't get paid directly, but when it comes time for raises/bonuses/promotions higher ups will generally take your extra effort into consideration. I don't think that there is many people who are ready to do full extra shifts (testing is quite time consuming work) make sure that 71 people who are hired to do QA work have done their job as good as they should have, even if it would guarantee rise in future if game is reviewed good enough.

Steampunk AT-AT

There's only so much blame you can lay at the feet of QA though. After all these aren't random obscure bugs we're talking about, but blatant issues the devs would have seen by simply playing through their own game. In their own time? As publishers don't pay them to play their own game as they have QA department for that purpose. But after F:NV Obsidian decided that they will use their own money to ensure that games quality is enough so that what happened with F:NV don't happen again (or at least I think that was reason for their own QA department). If you have ever done complex computer programs (like games), you know that most of the time whole product is not functional, but only parts of it, why you need to do integration and systems tests, to see if all parts work with other like you have intented, but that take time and money to do so smaller development studios usually give that part for publishers to do as they have more resources and its their product at the end of the day, but that don't work always so well as we have seen. If they bothered to do it on their own time then maybe they would have hit that 85 on metacritic (and then they would have been paid). Also, while it may be the publisher's product, the massive amount of bugs reflects more on the developer (after all who was blamed for the whole A:CM debacle; Gearbox or Sega). Do you usually do work for free for companies that you work? I may reflect badly (mostly because people have wrong image how things work in development) on developer, but most of time small developers just don't have money to pay anyone to test their product. Especially when you need to do that testing in multiple platforms and you must test product that have tens of hours of gameplay content to be tested. And there is usually also problem that employees of developer can't bring game in their homes to be played, for contract/technical/other reasons, so usually all playing during development much be done during office hour (same time when those employees should make that game). And having two QA teams for game seems very redundant on the paper. And it is debatable if loss of gameplay content would have cause F:NV lose more MC points than fixed bugs would have rised it. And I blame always QA department and the one(s) whose decision it was to put buggy game on the market. Although what I have read about A:CM it had many things wrong in it development like workers that work on Borderlands, but collect their payment from Sega's A:CM budget and large parts of game was outsourced outside of the Gearbox, and that development team didn't except that game would ship present year's february, which was big part of why it was so full of bugs. So sometimes you can share responsibilty with more open handedly. http://www.destructoid.com/developer-gearbox-lied-to-sega-2k-over-colonial-marines-245986.phtml http://www.destructoid.com/so-who-the-hell-did-make-aliens-colonial-marines--244939.phtml

There's only so much blame you can lay at the feet of QA though. After all these aren't random obscure bugs we're talking about, but blatant issues the devs would have seen by simply playing through their own game. In their own time? As publishers don't pay them to play their own game as they have QA department for that purpose. But after F:NV Obsidian decided that they will use their own money to ensure that games quality is enough so that what happened with F:NV don't happen again (or at least I think that was reason for their own QA department). If you have ever done complex computer programs (like games), you know that most of the time whole product is not functional, but only parts of it, why you need to do integration and systems tests, to see if all parts work with other like you have intented, but that take time and money to do so smaller development studios usually give that part for publishers to do as they have more resources and its their product at the end of the day, but that don't work always so well as we have seen.

DS3 is the only one, but in that case I'd rather have bugs than the ****show of a PC port that game was. Also that game was a great deal more linear than AP and NV which were some of the most bug filled games I'd ever played. DS3 is only Obsidian game where Obsidian itself did do QA (Quality assurance), in other their games publishers were entirely resposibility of QA and decision when game is good enough to be published. It is hard to fix bugs when your bug testers say that this works well enough now and so stop development now, as we will publish this version of the game.

Obsidian's games reliability has rised significantly during years, especially when they started their own QA team, as DS3 don't have any major bugs (at least I don't know any). So I am quite confident that PE's quality in that department will be at least adequate. Non-linear story is in my opinion better for not specified main character RPGs than linear story as it gives player freedon to roleplay more his/her character.

I put small ammount so that I can easilly follow if this project will even partially fulfil my hopes for this project and if it does not, I can always cancel my pledge and if it does fulfil my hopes and dreams and more, then...

I think that they targeted passenger train.

You Are A: Lawful Good Human Wizard (5th Level) Ability Scores: Strength- 14 Dexterity- 16 Constitution- 16 Intelligence- 16 Wisdom- 12 Charisma- 14 Decent wizard, but aligment is maybe bit off.

I think it would be more constructive to tell what one liked (or did not like) in BG2 and other IE games instead of bashing lead designer of this project, because he don't like same games as you, as that will most least likely give you such game which you want to play. Or at least one could give critic or praise choices that they have already made for PE. IMHO.

Usability problems, like? And what would you consider a game with a good UI then, and why? Starcraft and Starcraft 2 both have quite good UIs, but I can found some nit picking even them. But they are good because their UI don't usually cause you make wrong command or hide information from you. And it has very good keyboard shortcuts. Morrowind also has good UI, as you can arrange hud element as you want and decide what hud elements you want to see on the screen. And it also has quite good shortcuts. Angry Birds has excelent gameplay UI as it gives you all information what you need and ability to zoom to see whole level and back to slingshot, although its menus are annoying. There is probly games even better ui, but I don't remember them as they weren't as good games and they don't even have UI problems that would irritate me so much that they would make me remember the game. One biggest problem is how UI uses lot of space in higher resolutions, without using space in something that could be conidered useful, but same time item descriptions, character infromation has little space and player need often scroll these texts back and for to find all infromation what s/he needs. Spell memorization is quite painful when you have lots of spells and slots, player often realize that his or her character have spells that are there because s/he forgot change them. Inventory managment for whole team is very fustraiting some times. Finding enemies in battle especially when some are fled behind fog of war, is quite iritaiting, as they lock you in combat even that your party can't see them. And there is noway to say your party that go and hunt that enemy down. And other similar little irritations. To give you full list would need to me play game and list things when I play and then I should watch when other people play and list problems and irritations that they face.

If we look BG2 has lot of things that one can criticize it. For example CNPC (companion nonplayer characters): Aerie, Viconia, Jaheira, Anomen Delryn, Imoen, Haer'Dalis and Yoshimo can be found from many most annoying companion in games lists and other companion character in BG2 can found from list that list what companions player didn't use (of course exception for these are Minsc and Edwin Odessieron). So maybe there is some critisim said about how they are writen and especially how companion conversation are started in BG2. Although those annoying companions are some of most memorable companions in video game history, but so are companions from PS:T and those very rarely get annoying list or list that player never used them (except Normdom, who some players didn't find.) And level design in BG2 had its faults, like content overflow (which some players like and some don't), but from desing point of view it is fault as it usually causes plausibility of game to drop even among those players who liked the game. And there was problems in some dialogs that there was not good neurtal choice to choose, and always dialog didn't give you good options to roleplay your character. (IMO) And not speaking about absolute unnecessary skill like thieving (all IE games made thieving quite worthless skill, but BGs were worst of the lot) Combats were nice puzzles sometimes but those puzzle often focus in around magic and magic user, which caused combats be much less enjoyable without magic users (IMO) . Compulsory Imoen saiving quest was not best choice for plot forwarding especially when it was possibility that Imoen was died in first game permanently. And AD&D ruleset itself has many problems in it. But there is also lot of good in BG2, especially when you look it as whole, which is why it is still one of my favorite CRPGs ever. But not seeing its flaws would be much worse for PE than being too harsh.

BG2's and IWD2's UIs are far from perfect, most what I can say about them that UIs were ok in time when they were released, but there is many ways to make them better. Especially in how UI used to show player textual infromation, like character records and item descriptions. How keyboard short cuts worked was far from optimal. Visually they were good looking, but they had quite lot things that did cause usability problems.

Absolute, for every 5(M) likes there will be new level.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/17/jagged-alliance-reboot-seeks-kickstarter-funding?abthid=516eddeb154442475d000017 Jagged Alliance goes back to its roots with kickstarter campaing that apparently starts in next week

Thinks that are taken from IE games are: Axonometric (like IE games use) perspective. Pre-rendered high resolution backgrounds to make artistic style resample that what was used in IE games Six member party system (one that was used in IE games) Real-time with pause combat system (one that was used in the IE games) High fantasy setting (like in IE games) Art style mimic style from IE games More generic things that are also common with IE games Area exploration Story that evolves around and react to your character and how you play the game Reactive and intresting companions Tactical combat Multiple solutions in problems represented to your character

I must say that I like how PE's world's (I would like also now what world is called, as it would make it soma much easier to refer to it) lore so far lot. Early imperialism, multi-race societies and human migration (hmm, should we use some other term, like people migration or folk migration, as humans aren't only race/species that move from area to another, in same migration context?).

I think that they said somewhere that they do more if there is time, but they concentrate make companions reactive and fun to interact instead of making large quantities of semi silent companions. But they made adventure's hall where you can create and hire those silent types of companions. In my opinion it is quite good trade off, as they do have quite limited budget.

They also have more hair and like live in forrest and set traps. And they have some feline blood in them.

They have stated that there will be DRM free version on Linux too, they hope that GOG will expand to linux, but if not, they will find another solution.

Arcanum get more intresting in this playthrough and MCA's comment are as hilarious as in previous videos. Information about ethnic options of races was nice, as was tidbit about different cultural backgrounds And aumauas have intrestingly nice and fresh look in them.

I would say yes. As it would make gear min-maxing more challenging task and would also be great reason to prefer lighter armour that player's character themsevles can make fit instead of finding armourer/or something similar. And it also would work as great money sink. But same time it wouldn't be too menial task to become buggersome. IMO.