KenThomas

This was from Lands of Lore, a 1992 game that ran in MS-DOS. It was 640x400 pixels and was designed to run on a 386. 2D backgrounds really do hold up well considering the severe limitions they were working with.

Yeah I'm also not a fan of the colored names thing. Nor am I a fan of artificial difficulty levels like in NWN and WoW. Those games made it so that enemies with red or orange names didn't just have the advantage of higher hp and damage output, they also had these silly hit/miss mechanics where your characters couldn't hit them or do much of anything to them. It always felt a contrived cheap system to force players to fear and respect enemies that they wanted to be "tough". It was especially evident in WoW's pvp system, where someone who was say, level 70 could take on probably about 200 level 30's and have it be a fair fight. That kind of mechanic is absurd. It reminds me of Neo vs the legions of Agent Smith.

I think once someone eventually gets the idea that's what they're supposed to do, they'll be more apt to consider that as an option in future encounters and games. Also, people can look things up online nowadays, they'd eventually find out. If they went on a huge ragey rant about it they'd probably just make themselves look dumb. I'd also be in favor of attrition tactics getting brought into a game like this. It'd be good if the first encounter of this kind was accompanied by some sort of dialogue prompt such as an NPC saying "there's a lot of noise coming from that room ahead, we should scout it before going in" and then having a way to peek inside before opening the door. That'd give you the chance to setup some traps and plan out your strategy. edit: sorry the above was already suggested by curryinahurry and in a way by Nonek. Consider me to be uhh.. thirding the notion. It's not that I don't read threads, I just find I give better posts if I give my thoughts on something first and then read and respond directly after that. Otherwise I totally get involved in "groupthink" where the possibilities I consider get restricted to the path others are already considering, and then I'm not adding anything useful to the discussion. I think if you want players to have to be more "tactical" you'd also want to prevent players from doing what I think is the typical tactic in this kind of game. Whenever I encountered a room packed with enemies, I'd simply have my fighter stand in the doorway using his most defensive damage reducing talents while he's getting slammed with heals. Meanwhile I'd have my mage(s) casting AOE spells of doom through the door to the other side. The end result is a ton of XP for essentially no work or danger. Ways to avoid this that I've thought of: -Spell warding; certain areas spells are not able to be cast in without preforming a long spellcast to break the ward. The extra time involved would likely end up meaning that the fighter would take too much damage before enemies started dying (likely due to knockdowns when surrounded) and the standard tactic would not work, forcing creative thought into other tactics. -Counteracting spells; if for instance your mage casts firestorm, an opposing mage could cast blizzard in the area. Anyone who's in the spots where they overlap is protected from damage by them cancelling each other out, forcing the player to move the enemies to a different area in order to damage them. -Wizard battles; if a mage is using a long cast time, if an opposing mage has line of sight on him he should be able to respond to a counterspell type of prompt that would then put the opposing mage's spell on cooldown as though it had been cast but without the spell actually going off. -Smart AI; they don't run stupidly into the firestorm but wait at the periphery until it expires before charging. Meanwhile they're firing bow attacks at the warrior standing in the door. This would force the player to draw enemies into something like a hallway and then having features in the game that allowed the control of space. Either traps that brought down rubble from walls and forced time being taken to clear it before anyone could go that way, or a spell that allowed a door to be shut from range, or some kind of forcefield spell that made an area impassable for some length of time, or a player triggerable trap that could be activated from range or with something like a bowshot (ie grease fire in braveheart). The general idea is the AI is smart enough to avoid stuff that will kill them, but that will necessitate the player having the opportunity to control space in some way with traps or spells or preferably both.

Then it's not even a revolution, as it's been done before. You're still not getting my point. As i said in an earlier post, the emphasis is on the fact that Obsidian is a well known and respected big game developer. They're the first really well known game studio to go this route and when other companies are thinking about using kickstarter instead of a publisher, THIS is the example they're going to give. Not the ones that came before. Try to diminish this all you like, but it's a fact that this project is the one that has gotten everyone's attention, this is the one that's going to be watched closely by other devs and publishers though its development process, and this is going to be the example that's looked at historically for better or worse.

Yeah seeing their implementation in that game has really raised my expectations and opinion of what "good" weapon design is in a game. They were able to make it so that you could literally pick whatever weapon had the moveset you liked for your playstyle and it was a totally legitimate choice. Like you say it's a very different game type, but it would be nice to see some of those kinds of ideas about weapon playstyle applied in other games.

I certainly wouldn't mind if say there was a warrior skill called "leg sweep" that requires a sharp edged two handed weapon like a greatsword or axe etc and if they crit with it a leg or legs were taken off in its swing path leaving the enemies alive but unable to move. Exploding into giblets just for the sake of giblets gets kinda cheesy pretty quickly.

Yeah that was decent, great game by the way. The best traps I've seen recently was in Dark Souls. Check out a youtube of Sen's Fortress: That's a first person perspective game but there's no reason traps of that nature can't be put into a top down view game.

This isn't about the gameplay. It's about breaking away from the publisher model successfully and the slew of possibilities that opens up.

I agree. My wife and I were talking the other day about how this is likely a game changer. Finally a developer with a recognized and respected name is looking for funding directly from players and it's working. I believe that if fans heavily support this model and reject publishers and the severe restrictions they place on IP's, we could see a completely new era of interactive media. The last time we saw a range of truly creative games was way back when publishers were also not needed. When games were so small they could be made by a couple of friends absent of funding. Once games started needing full teams due to their complexity, they had to be financed, and financeer money always comes with restrictions, usually pretty extensive ones.

Yeah, it was a stupid offer that only an idiot would be blinded by. The article posted in this thread, imo, is being a little overdramatic about it. Businesses are businesses. By design, they seek a profit no matter the circumstances (unless a CEO or other worker is willing to make exceptions). This means that yes, sometimes they make really scummy offers knowing full-well that it's a scummy offer. They don't give a damn and do it anyways, because not making the offer entails 0 profit whereas making the offer potentially entails a lot of profit. It's to be expected, and I hardly think it's a severe problem like that article makes it out to be. Nah, it's just god damn hilarious, is what it is. No, I think its important that it gets shamed for the shameful act that it is. If people hear the story and just shrug it off, publishers won't believe there's anything to stop them. They'll find ways to pressure companies into accepting these ****ty deals, therefore keeping themselves in the mix. This should be treated seriously, because it is. We have a legitimate chance for gaming to get back to being a creative process with creative titles, much like it was 20 years ago when games were so simple they could be made by a couple of friends during their free time. Once publishers became necessary, they started restricting everything because that was the condition for getting their money. This project is likely to be the example held up to other developers that they no longer need to be restricted. That is only going to work if we take shady attempts by publishers seriously and don't give them an ounce of legitimacy.

I think legal trouble is the least of their worries. It's more likely they don't want to damage any possible business relationship they might have in the future. Actually, bringing up that it happened yet not naming the studio protects Obsidian far more than if they were to say nothing at all. Now publishers won't dare sue them because as soon as they do everyone will think it was that publisher that tried to engage Obsidian in the kickstarter fraud scheme.

This ain't an AAA title though, is it? Not in the overblown, over-hyped, uber-marketed CoD way I consider 'AAA.' I paid $35.00 for a game up front. I don't suddenly feel like a shareholder, just a person who put his money where his mouth is. Over-entitlement is one of the most prevalent yet pointless features of these types of forums. I'm not saying *you* are, far from it, but we're heading slowly in that direction IMO. Yes, I agree completely and that's something I would also like to avoid. I'm going to be pithy here and say people's sense of entitlement is the number one problem in our society.

I'm going to abstain from voting. I really hope they give themselves as long as it will take to finish the game in a polished way. As they've been adding on content as part of their stretch goals, I definitely have been thinking to myself that I hope they also add on extra time to "make it right" as Mike Holmes would say. Of course, perhaps they don't need extra time when they have extra money perhaps the extra staff thing takes care of it. That said I do think it's a very legitimate concern for them not to bring too many people onto the team. Too many rookies could definitely undermine the final product. They may reach a point where they either stop accepting donations or they push back the release date of the game to accomodate the time spent adding in the extra content. Personally I'd rather see their strongest team methodically work their way through the content than hire on less talented people to add in a bunch of filler. Filler always feels like filler from my gameplay experience. Also, with regards to the money invested: I invested as much money as I felt like I could afford and what I wanted to contribute towards the idea. I personally don't care how much money that they get as long as they have enough money to do whatever is needed to get the final product they envision. I don't expect them to account for every single dollar past their goal. I hope they don't feel obligated to continue adding things to the game if it's going to compromise the final product. IMO if it's in danger of that either stop accepting donations or hold the money in some kind of operating expenses fund, because you never know what you're going to run into and we're their only source of funds. They'd have no way of getting more if they need it later in the process. If the product is finished and they still have extra, THEN they can figure out what to do with it. Personally I paid what I felt was right for me to contribute personally. If they end up with leftover money and its a great product, nobody is going to even care if they split it between them as a bonus.

Don't worry, it's clear English isn't your first language. This isn't going to be the last time someone who disagrees with your opinion decides to attack your grasp of the language instead of dealing with your arguments.

This example looks like a strawman setup. I think its a pretty safe assumption that if they believe something will add to the game, they'll put in the work. The previously quoted examples from the devs had to do with whether or not romance affect the quality of the end product, not how much it will add in terms of cost. They add in tons of content into these games in all areas. I don't think the work involved is the true issue and I don't find it believeable that the "time" spent making romances will end up meaning that some other important area of the game doesnt get done.

That's true. They're not. Just because something can be done a certain way doesn't mean it should be. Agreeing it's possible to make a good storyline without including romance shouldn't be twisted around and presented as proof that storys are better off without romance.

I take it that when you said You were allowing for the possibility in the story that souls had a will of their own? It looked like the rest of what you were saying had to do with them instead being an unconscious yet very evident effector of people's lives. As an overall framework, I do think that the idea of soul power and its philosophical implications works very well for explaining trends in human sociology. We've all heard of examples where someone was born to riches and influence yet were unable to make much of an impact with their lives and eventually lost what had been built up by their predecessors. Also, there have been many people in history who were essentially born to nothing yet have managed to rise up to create empires of one type or another, going far beyond the means they started with. Why couldn't that be because of something metaphysical? Perhaps the overwhelming power of someone's soul makes someone accept and support an idea that they would've rejected if it had come from others. I'm sure we've all experienced moments where we've either been part of or witnessed an idea being weighed not on its own merits but on who the person is who's presenting it.

Length of a thread isn't necessarily a very good determination of quality though right? I'm pretty sure a thread like that would go nowhere and wouldn't have much point aside from just a basic post count show of support. In that case I think a poll would work better. Also, the whole idea of "[x] comments only" threads suggests very severe restrictions on what people are allowed to say. As soon as you start doing that, you are telling people EXACTLY what they're allowed to post, completely ruining the point of forums, a place for people to express their opinions in conversation with each other. I mean are you seriously endorsing forums that would say "you are only allowed to post here if your post expresses [x] opinion"?

I'm not sure comparing homosexuality to bestiality is helping your case any. I agree with the rest of your post (which I'm sorry I have not quoted), but I don't think that squelching someone's opinion based on a reference they made helps the overall discussion any. Their post was overall cogent and the part of it that you objected to wasn't an endorsement of the act, merely an illustration of the point they were making. I'd prefer if people didn't have to be super careful about word and example choice for fear of being judged over those rather than the merits of their ideas.

Sorry this quote is taken WAY out of context of the rest of your post, but typically women do initiate romance with men in our world. They tend to start up the contact, give off the signals, make suggestions etc that lets the male know what his options are. In that particular circumstance, ie straight male player character, I do think this makes sense.

I don't think them being attracted regardless of gender is more realistic. Both personal experience and knowledge from science tells us that people are born with their orientation. It's far more common for people to get involved sexually with someone they dislike due to being attracted. Haven't you heard the multitudes of people who complain "my [x] is such a [y]"? They're romantically involved with someone that as a person they do not like, yet they went that route because they were too attracted to them not to. Also about multiple bi people, again personal experience and science do not agree with you. Have you seen the numbers of people who define themselves as bisexual? Gender bending androgyny is not even close to as common as you seem to think. About playersexual npcs, just "reading" them a certain way and having them turn out to be that way, once again, is unrealistic. Since when is anyone what you want them to be, just because you want them to be it? They've got a lifetime of personal history that has determined who they are up to that moment, completely independant of you. I know I've ripped pretty hard on your post. Oddly enough I don't "hate" it or anything or have any emotional involvement whatsoever, nor do I find it poorly written. I simply disagree with essentially every point you made.

Yeah that is going to be cool. Regardless, you've gotten me started and its been a while since I've even seen philosophical discussion, let alone participated.

It sounds like you're positing that souls retain some sort of consciousness of their own independant of the body they're inhabiting. If so, whose? If for instance it is a size 10 soul, meaning it's 10 times larger than the soul found within your average power person (using person philosophically as refers to an individual consciousness as opposed to meaning "human"), does that mean it's an amalgamation of 10 different people's past lives ie the preborn in Frank Herbert's Dune series? Or is it instead simply due to its relative size overpowering to other souls it comes into contact with? If so, the holder of the powerful soul perhaps sometimes feels like their mind is being invaded by foreign thoughts as their huge soul has a kind of soul gravity or magnetism to it that allows them to essentially experience the thoughts and feelings of those who are weaker than they are that are nearby whether they want to or not. If that was the case, would a person with a big soul of high intelligence be able to use this information to gain extra influence on the people around them? Would a person with a big soul yet low intelligence sometimes fall victim to external urges and act irrationally, perhaps needing to be isolated in order to stay sane? Perhaps the more apt attribute would be willpower, how well they're able to compartmentalize the extra information they're being given and retain control over their own personality.

And if this is the case, what would people think of that? I rather like having memories myself, thank you. Not that the denizens of that world necessarily know the nature of their afterlife. I think if a soul was being reused over and over again in each life cycle it would make living at all seem rather pointless. It's just throwing the souls at each other in an endless loop. Also, it would make for a fixed population and is reminiscent of the idea of various eternal mythological struggles, even when people weren't warring in those mythologies. If however the population wasn't fixed and was instead growing, yet there was a finite amount of soulstuff, individuals of each successive generation would get progressively weaker, allowing them to be dominated by individuals who had found a way to prolong their lives or make themselves immortal or who found a way to keep their soul from being split and redistributed upon their death or reproduction. If someone retains the entirety of their soul power in their next incarnation, it seems likely their children would have absolutely zero soul power or that they'd be unable to have children at all. If each parent gives up half of their soul power in order to create a child, then imbalances in soul power between parents would determine the strength of the soul of the child and the parents would immediately become weakened by half upon creation of one life. Also, subsequent children would only be half as strong as their older sibling due to the diminished strength of their parents at conception. It seems to me that a closed system where soul power is only scrubbed clean and reused, where it's a finite amount and does not come from an external source presents a LOT of problems (keep in mind here I am skimming the surface of the topic for the sake of post brevity). That says to me that the musings in my previous post with the example about a cleric being able to restore soul power is likely the more logical and workable system.

I like pop's posts. Also, the words "Gnarly" and "Rad" totally need to get more use in the English language. re: soul is taken can it be mended - would they need to recover their soul from the person / thing that took it or would it be able to be restored by something like a cleric? If the latter, is there some kind of metaphysical soul realm or well of soul power it is drawing from? In Carnivale (tv show) in order to heal others life force was taken from the surrounding areas, ie a field of corn or flock of birds etc. If the former, would those who held the souls of others have them essentially enthralled? If it was the basis of a caste system as you suggest, perhaps something like a former king being enthralled by his conqueror as an object lesson to any who would oppose him? This is cool, but I have to admit that while writing this I do have the apprehensive feeling that if they're wanting to write an entirely original story and not take any suggestions that by simply speculating on it we are restricting what they're able to write into the game. That said if they're open to it and don't mind where good ideas come from as long as they're good, rock on.