Elerond

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/inside-obsidian-entertainment-dark-cutting-edge-rpgs/ Here is article where Avellone tells that they have their own motion-capture and sound studios.

I like this idea, of course there would be copyright issues that shoud be solved. But I woud very much like to play warhammer using 3D printed PE miniatyres :D

Sure, if I felt generous... but why would I do that? Forgive me for being greedy and such, but I fail to see a good reason why I would just give money for nothing. Why not just put up the original backing options? What's the point of taking them down? I can understand removing the higher tiers to develop characters and weapons and all that (since they have to be put in the game in a timely fashion), but boxed versions of the game? That makes no sense to me. I think it is because selling games is not their business (at least not yet), so they don't want ordering and delivering boxed product come too much hassle to them.

Crap... And here I thought I'd already spent all the money I was going to spend on games this month. No worries their campaing will end in next month, so it will not cause any problems in this month

In my opinion control areas, in this case engagement area, work fine in tactic or strategy based real time games, especially those with pause. Because they add consideration and variation to tactics what one should use. And I think this update's rule system would work fine if it is tuned correctly. As normally character can only engage one character at time, so if you don't want your character to be engaged you only need to move another character to same engagement. And rules give additions like fighters can engage three characters at the time, but with cost of their offensive abilities, so fighter can block three enemies at the time, but this also means that fighter can't him/her self get rid off those enemies and s/he must hope that his or her allies come help or do their rangerd mojo before s/he is overrunned. And roques have abilities to unengage them at their own will with out any consequences. Barbarians can run through enemy lines. And other classes probably will have some abilities also. So engagement system brings new challenges but also ways to solve those challenges. Engagements will also give more important role for formations, as front men can stop enemy at least for short time before they can pursue your class cannon's etc. long range characters. So it is not any more necessary to try confuse enemy's pathfinding as gameplay mechanics now give legit way to block enemys path. Because we don't even know basic rule set how combat goes in PE (except that there will not be combat rounds), so I would not start yet yelling how one mechanic will cause fighters or any other class to be dominant in combat as it all depends how rules work and how balance between classes is made.

Batting away grimoires isn't something we're implementing just as batting away swords, bows, etc. are also not being implemented. Wizards aren't unique in this regard. Not a good comparison. Disarming a trained swordsman significantly differs from batting away the grimoire of a wizard focused on spellcasting (reading or using the grimoire as a focus to channel magical energy or whatever). Also, in the case of the wizard as you've outlined the class (dependent on a grimoire), it is simply the most obvious tactic... meaning that you'd best have some explanation for its absence as an option to avoid the barrage of inevitable questions about it. Best bet is probably some kind of in-universe mumbo-jumbo about the grimoire being mystically linked to the wizard to the extent that it'd simply float back to him, I suppose. Or something. I think that if wizard's soul energy which she or he has stored in grimoire is unleashed when it touches someone other than wizard her-/himself, then it is probably bad tactic to hit it as that will only cause magical backslash against hitter him-/herself. And of course grimoires are probably warded so that only their owners can touch them and others will get previously mentioned magical backslash.

picture from http://www.reggie.net/photography_blog/2007/07/18/book-with-ball-and-chain/ In my opinion grimoires have enchanted with theft preventing system which will stop rogues or anyone else to stealing them. And what comes to fighter to hit grimoire down, I would say that this is probably same as wizard failing in his/her grimoire slam.

My first computer was IBM PC XT with Intel 8088 @ 4.77 MHz processor and 640 kt ram (as nobody will not need more, or something like that ). It had also very large 10 MB hard drive . But it was enough power to run Microprose's F15 Strike Eagle II in grey colors.

Here is Nvidia's beard processing technology demo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7s7UyAVbmU

Way-points are probably best and easiest answer such path finding problems.

I made "beautiful" diagram to visualize how I see melee engagement system from this update, except that I added couple features (which you can find in with text circles) that in my opinion could be something to think to be added in system.

I like how melee characters take more important role in combat's tactical side. It looks that especially break through enemy lines will become more interesting than what it is in IE games. And engagement areas could give good way make spear, halberd or some other pole arm better choice than sword or hammer. And of course I hope that this means that I can make wizard like Gandalf who can say to demon that "You shall not pass" :D.

I have plan to support it, amount depend on what they will actually offer

Lan co-op could or could not work in game like PE, but I vote no as making working and playable multiplayer mode in the game is not so easy and small amount of work as some think and this game don't have publisher budget behind it, so in my opinion it is better that Obsidian focus only to do as good and as vast single player campaign as they could and do not waste part of their small budget to do inadequate multiplayer mode that they haven't even planed in first place doing. If they want to do multiplayer game or game with multiplayer mode they should start new project for that game, but it would be ill-advised to try add multiplayer mode in this game even so early in development as it would mean that they must calculate their whole budget and time frame again and hope that it is enough to implement everything what they have promised for the backers.

Keeping your game library in one place, play options, more established and collapse-proof business. Why would someone oppose having an option that takes no time to implement, that people would make use of, and actually saves dev time?I may be wrong... but... can't you add non-Steam installed games on your system to your Steam library at any time? You know, to simply keep them together and such? Sure, you don't get all the Steam features. But, still... *shrug* Yes you can and you even can instaall your games from GOG in your steam folder. And what comes toward steam services you don't get them to games that work with out steam anyway so there is little difference.

Gamersgate is excellent service but it is also western as it is Swedish and their downloaders have DRM in them, and therefore we can't replace GOG with it. So even gamersgate can't solve this problem to us.

If you take your digital copy in steam you will have DRM in your license as you can't install at first place your game without log-in steam and you can't move it to another computer without steam. So you can't have steam version of game without DRM as running steam version of the game without steam client running don't make game DRM free, it only means that game don't use any of steam's services.

So, is it possible or not? Is the "requires the Steam client running to launch" code an inseparable part of the pack of the Steamworks features, or can it come separately? Steamworks needs steam client running to work, as it is part of it. Game developer can make it's game work so that in offline mode it puts achievements and cloud saves in queue list which works so that next time you launch your game from that computer with steam client on, it tries to update all information to your steam account, but this don't always work, which causes you miss achievements and cloud server to missing some of your saves (if not all) . Auto-updates via steamworks will always need steam client to run in online mode. Of course game developer can make it's own auto-updater, but that will need additional development time from developer and their own patch servers.

Steam version of PE will need Steam at least for installation, where GOG version comes with service independent installer. So steam version will always have some sort digital rights management as you need confirm you rights to game before you can install it. And what comes to running Steam version of PE with out steam client running in background. That is possible if game don't need any services from the steam, but I am not sure if it's most brilliant idea not to use steams services like chat, achievements and mod loader (and steam's copy protection). But if game will not use any of this services, then it some what automatically comes such that it is possible to run it without steam client. Game's physical copies of course or at least probably will come with installer that is not locked in steam, even if they come with steam key.

From this video one can see most of the UI problems that Arcanum has, but when you get past them game gets more entertaining. In end of the video when Chris's characters gets a level, but he don't react in it anyway, it makes me want to yell hey you got a level .

I think that they have said that they probably will go with one size fit to all in armors, because problems that multiple different armor sizes causes in design.

I like these technical updates very much as they give me new perspective how I see things in video games. And is nice to hear that you try to things cost effectively, but still aiming to give quality product. Dwarf look like dwarf which is very good thing also. Race specific helmets (or no helmets at all for some races) sound nice addition. Orlans especially look like that they would need specially made helmets to get their ears to fit in.

I like idea that there is no straightforward alignments inside of the pantheon. Because it gives more room to make gods interesting and gives possibility where gods agenda from one perspective is good and from another perspective it's bad/evil. For example one god's agenda could be keeping rightful king in throne, as it's his divine right to rule, but this king is tyrant, which is why there is another god who wants him to be replaced by someone who s/he see fitting better on the throne, which is young girl who don't have any schooling what so ever as she was raised by family of farmers. Or some other not so clicheic scenario where there is no true answer to tell which of the options is good or bad/evil. I also like how orlan looks in the picture.

I don't see that single zombie is enemy which I would qualify a nasty enemy. But group of zombies could have several different kinds of weapons with them, so it would be wise to player to use several different armor types in his or her party. Or zombies could carry diseases, which would make normal armor useless against some of their special attacks, as those attacks goes against characters fortitude. If we take assumption that golem's creator has not equip them with slashing or piercing weapons, then we can make rock golems be nasty enemies making their armor such that all weapon types are bad against them or make them do so much damage that even characters in good armor type against it hits can't take many. And of course there could be enemies that deal only one damage type as they only wield one weapon, which would make them be in somewhat disadvantage against characters that wear armor which their weapon is bad against. And if remember correctly, inventory system which they have planned has very limited number places for items that you can uses outside of the safe zones, which could make it bad idea to keep there twelve change armors, for cases where you face opponents that deal only one type of damage. And eighteen good armors probably cost rather heavy price to one keep so many in his or her stack. If, if, if... It's not about ifs or about the zombie being a serial killer, it's about realistic situations and possibilities. It's about this system being super debilitating for the AI and a mere annoyance (at worst) for the player. Do you find a pack of wolves (alpha wolf included) attacking the player a realistic scenario? What will they do if their damage type (piercing) is completely useless against the party's armor? Will they pause the game, go to the dentist, have their teeth removed and replaced with blades or guns? All the player needs to do is find the nearest transition, change armor and come back. No, he doesn't even need to reload... And wolves and their teeth will be useless. That's if they happen to be spotted by the pack of wolves, if they're not.. the party doesn't even need to exit the area and can change armor on the spot, before engaging them. Wolves can't. You face a huge aumaua brute with a two-handed warmace.. And all of a sudden, 'coz he doesn't like your armor type, he unsheathes his lil' dagger and starts poking you with it... Or, a powerful assassin, and you've heard stories about him and his prowess with daggers, throws his daggers away at the beginning of the fight and starts hitting you with a flail? Really? What would this silliness look like? Is it worth it? And what about attacks of opportunity (against a headless AI chicken that chases your guy with light armor) that I mentioned earlier, how would you like to fix that? The -50% thing works in strategy games like Warcraft where units can't just switch their damage type. Deciding which units (and damage types) to produce is an important strategic element in such games. Here, they want it to be a tactical element, and it simply doesn't work for the AI. I don't see any problem if pack of wolves has problems against heavily armored party. And wolves do also slashing damage with their pawns. But over all in my mind planed system works with wolves somewhat as it should. So wolves fare better with light armored opponents. And for aumaua example. If for example two-handed war-mace does 10-20 damage against medium and heavy armor, but is bad against light armors and there fore does 5-10 and dagger does 1-4 damage against light and medium armors and 0-2 against heavy armors, then there is no reason to switch mace to dagger. And if assassin goes single combat with heavily armored enemy it would be somewhat stupid try win that fight with dagger. To think how make AI work I would need to know all variables, not only couple and trying guess all others, so I can't give any ideas toward imaginary headless chicken chase case. Making AI react intelligently to this system is not more complex than make AI uses their boost/defense/heal/ abilities or spell in intelligent manner.

Oh yes, this is indeed ingenious... having every enemy and their mother switch weapons (even if it's completely out of character) to overcome their "bad" damage type that they've been practicing with their entire lives. I'd expect a zombie to pull a hammer out of its ass if the axe doesn't do the job, correct? Rock golems should start hitting with karate chops to overcome their inherent proficiency for bludgeoning, no? I don't see that single zombie is enemy which I would qualify a nasty enemy. But group of zombies could have several different kinds of weapons with them, so it would be wise to player to use several different armor types in his or her party. Or zombies could carry diseases, which would make normal armor useless against some of their special attacks, as those attacks goes against characters fortitude. If we take assumption that golem's creator has not equip them with slashing or piercing weapons, then we can make rock golems be nasty enemies making their armor such that all weapon types are bad against them or make them do so much damage that even characters in good armor type against it hits can't take many. And of course there could be enemies that deal only one damage type as they only wield one weapon, which would make them be in somewhat disadvantage against characters that wear armor which their weapon is bad against. And if remember correctly, inventory system which they have planned has very limited number places for items that you can uses outside of the safe zones, which could make it bad idea to keep there twelve change armors, for cases where you face opponents that deal only one type of damage. And eighteen good armors probably cost rather heavy price to one keep so many in his or her stack.